• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Free Choice to Accept or Reject?

You have that backwards.

Can a person understand and believe in the person and work of Jesus as given in the Scripture----what is necessary for eternal life ("believe and you will have eternal life") and also reject what you believe---unbelieve it?
Have you ever believed something once, perhaps long ago, that you no longer believe? If so, does that mean that you now unbelieve it?
 
Please answer my original question,
prism said:
"If it's not found in any manuscript, why would we want to treat it as God's Word?"
There are many things that are not found in any manuscript but are treated as God's Word. That is probably because they align with or support their own present view of things. But so very, very few have any idea what is or is not found in any manuscript. Do you? Are you suggesting that the passages you listed are not found in any manuscript?
 
In case, in all the tangle of the discussion prompted by by question "Did God give me the desire to want chocolate at least twice a day?" my beliefs have come into question, as though I agreed with those who shun Reformed theology, I will make my view clear.

I know that there are varying views of determinism in Reformed and Calvinism. I do not know what they all are and I have not done an in depth study of all the philosophical points of investigation. So what I give here is what I believe as far as it goes in that direction. Which, to be honest, relegates determinism to where I think it should theologically be. And that is within the doctrines of grace regarding election unto salvation. To me, to go so deep into back tracking it philosophically, aside from who God declares himself to be and shows himself to be, as to finally arrive at the answer to my question being "Yes, he did give me a desire for chocolate and also gives men (even Adam) the desire to sin." is to push the envelope much farther than it ought to go, given that it attempts to penetrate the mind of God and his actions and purposes beyond what we are clearly told. Maybe it isn't, but that is how I see it.

I believe that God knows all things and is learning nothing, and governs everything. That his purpose is never thwarted and cannot be.
I believe that the Bible is the story of redemption from beginning to end and everything in it is related to that purpose and is the focus. And that the end goal is the utter end to evil in the world and in his redeemed people. A new creation and a new man. A rescue from the consequences of Adam's sin.
I believe God both knew and intended that Adam would sin, and that he made him capable of sinning by creating him with a will, but he did not make him sin or give him a desire to sin. I believe that the only way to destroy evil, was with two federall heads---Adam who caused the fall and Christ who would, as one of us, conquer sin and death through his substitutionary death and taking the just punishment for our sin.
I believe that everything that comes to pass is because God has ordained it to come to pass.
I believe we have evil desires and they are our own evil desires, not given to us by God.
I believe that no one can come to faith in Christ without God changing them from being an enemy of God and God their enemy to one who loves God and follows him. From vertical view, we can not approach him because of our sin. From a horizontal view, we don't want to. We love our sin.


I believe that therefore, God must determine who he wills to save through regeneration by the Holy Spirit. We can do nothing to instigate this action. I believe he knows them before the foundation of the world, and even created them for that purpose. By default, that leaves those he does not choose to save left in their sins and if they were not, justice and mercy could never kiss, so they too are for his glory. He did not choose the reprobate, they are the reprobate. He chose those to give to Christ.
 
He did not choose the reprobate, they are the reprobate. He chose those to give to Christ.
How did they become the reprobate? If not chosen by God, then by whom?
 
How did they become the reprobate? If not chosen by God, then by whom?
The sentence you quote gives the answer.
 
It is possible to believe something and reject it at the same time. It is not possible to believe in something and to reject it at the same time since to believe in something is to accept it, to trust it, to respond to it, to act accordingly to it. To reject it, by definition, means not to believe in it.
I can believe I must pay my taxes, but reject it.

Romans 1 shows the ungodly first believing (knowing) God for what he is —the one and only God— but rejecting that knowledge.

I can believe that obedience is better for me than disobedience, but disobey anyway.
 
So, just as I thought, you have no answer.
How does the sentence you quote gives the answer become in your mind. "I have no answer."?

God does not choose the reprobate, they are the reprobate. He chooses the one's to rescue. The only reason you would consider that not an answer is because you start with since the cross every one is born sinless. You do not believe in the federal headship of Adam and yet I assume. do believe in the federal headship of Christ. You do not believe that all persons are born in Adam. as Adam, who became a sinful being. You do not believe we as humans are like our human father Adam. Even though that is probably the only place in the natural world that you do not believe that.
 
I can believe I must pay my taxes, but reject it.

Romans 1 shows the ungodly first believing (knowing) God for what he is —the one and only God— but rejecting that knowledge.

I can believe that obedience is better for me than disobedience, but disobey anyway
Can you believe in God, meaning in part that you trust and have confidence in God, but reject God? I don't think so. To reject God is to not believe in God. That is what it means.
 
How does the sentence you quote gives the answer become in your mind. "I have no answer."?

God does not choose the reprobate, they are the reprobate. He chooses the one's to rescue. The only reason you would consider that not an answer is because you start with since the cross every one is born sinless. You do not believe in the federal headship of Adam and yet I assume. do believe in the federal headship of Christ. You do not believe that all persons are born in Adam. as Adam, who became a sinful being. You do not believe we as humans are like our human father Adam. Even though that is probably the only place in the natural world that you do not believe that.
Theologically, what is a reprobate? Define it.
 
Martha made her awareness of the future resurrection as knowing it.
You either don't understand what I am getting at or are avoiding it. Martha had already acknowledged a belief in the resurrection before Jesus stated he was the resurrection and the life and even if they believe this even if they die they will live and asked if she believed that was who he is. WHen she answered him "Yes." and said that she believed he was the Son of God who was to come, she was not stating her belief in a future resurrection again. She had recognized something else about Jesus.

That believing that leads to eternal life had to do with who Jesus is. So, if someone believes what is necessary for eternal life can they choose to unbelieve it? The OP is relating to the board it is in. Election vs free will. It is not about doubts.
"Is it pPrelude for what was to occur after the resurrection of Lazarus.

Was she not one women beholding Jesus being crucified with Mary from afar off>
Irrelevant.
In respect to Martha's knowledge of the future resurrection of the saints thus giving her foreknowledge for how that future resurrection will happen
Martha knew nothing about the saints. The Pharisees believed only Jews would be resurrected.
Well, your question was conflated in and of itself.
Only if a person answered it without considering the passage that was given or the thread it was in.
Free choice to accept or reject is the title and yet your question was can they accept to believe and then reject?
Free Choice to Accept or Reject ? is the title. And the question after having given a specific question concerning a specific historical event was, is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time? There was nothing about accepting to believe in it.
I gave the example of the father wanting Jesus to cast out the devil out of his son and though he believes, yet he admitted to needing His help for his unbelief or doubts in what he wanted Jesus to do then and there.
The OP is not about doubts and never was it asked if a person can have doubts.
Okay then. What do you think Martha is believing and yet rejecting in that event you cited in scripture?
I don't think she was rejecting anything and I never said she was. Believing gives eternal life. Some say you can believe unto eternal life and then choose to reject it and a person's having eternal life hangs in the balance somewhere in never never land while it awaits the final verdict of the person who believes something; and in that moment of believing what they hear, according to Jesus, have eternal life; but then choose to unbelieve it, losing eternal life. Which of course in that case, would never have really been eternal even though Jesus said it was.

Is that possible or impossible?
 
Theologically, what is a reprobate? Define it.
An unrepentant sinner who has not been regenerated and brought to faith by the Most High God. Anyone who is not one of God's elect.
 
One time miracles (like the virgin birth) might fall into that category.
That is not what I am talking about though. Relate it to what Jesus says about believing in him giving eternal life.
 
Have you ever believed something once, perhaps long ago, that you no longer believe? If so, does that mean that you now unbelieve it?
Sure. But it was not promised that whatever that was would give me eternal life. Stay on point.
 
Can you believe in God, meaning in part that you trust and have confidence in God, but reject God? I don't think so. To reject God is to not believe in God. That is what it means.
:ROFLMAO: You always state this backwards. In part it depends solely on what the person using " believing in" or simply "believe" intend. But you make it clear. Believing God implies trust and confidence and acting accordingly. To reject God is to not believe in his existence if one is an atheist. Or to pay him no mind but believe he exists.

But the OP is not dealing with whether one believes God or believes in God. It is directly associated with believing the person and work of Christ and trusting in that and nothing else for salvation. Many, if not all, religions apart from Christianity believe Jesus existed. What they do not believe in is who he is as Son of God or in the value of his death and resurrection. And that is the only way to God.

So to bring the question back into its focus as was shown by the scripture quoted in the OP: Can one believe what is necessary for eternal life and not believe it at the same time? Can they believe it and choose not to believe it?

And I will add another question for you. If he can't choose to not believe what he believes about Christ that gives eternal life, how did he come to believe it when so many hear the same thing and do not believe it?
 
Can you believe in God, meaning in part that you trust and have confidence in God, but reject God? I don't think so. To reject God is to not believe in God. That is what it means.
Is [occasional] disobedience not rejecting God in some form?
 
An unrepentant sinner who has not been regenerated and brought to faith by the Most High God. Anyone who is not one of God's elect.
That's two definitions. (Both accurate). In the context of the discussion, or at least according to your use of it as to the end of the reprobate, they are the second: "Anyone who is not one of God's elect"

@JIM will do anything he can to blur the line between the two definitions, just in an attempt to confound the notion that GOD is the one who decides upon whom to show his particular mercy. Jim wants to come through the back door to convince anyone, or just to make noise concerning, that self-determinism is THE Scriptural POV.
 
Do you? Are you suggesting that the passages you listed are not found in any manuscript?
First answer my answer before I answer yours.
"If it's not found in any manuscript, why would we want to treat it as God's Word?"
 
Last edited:
Have you ever believed something once, perhaps long ago, that you no longer believe?
Yep.
That happens a lot of times when folks become privy to data they did know of before.

If so, does that mean that you now unbelieve it?
It's a choice mankind has, to change their mind.
 
Back
Top