• **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.

Romans 9 from a free will prespective

Do you mean things like "Nice try, but no cigar"?
Sure, that too.

If I throw meaningless one liners and such at you, I’d expect the same. 😎
 
That is exactly what you are doing ! ! !
Okay Jim. Whenever you are ready, you let me know.

I’ll be waiting 😎

Hope this helps
 
Chapter 9 is about who God used to bring the message and the plan of salvation to us. Paul's message is the rebuttal to the Jews thinking that God must save them because Israel was His chosen nation.
Previously you have written, "Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone." Now you say Romans 9 is about salvation.

It's hard to keep up with that kind of obfuscature.
 
Previously you have written, "Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone." Now you say Romans 9 is about salvation.

It's hard to keep up with that kind of obfuscature.
It is about how God used the nation Israel, generally, and Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh specifically to bring salvation to the world. It is not giving specifics of what that plan is or how the plan is enacted.
 
It is about how God used the nation Israel, generally, and Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh specifically to bring salvation to the world. It is not giving specifics of what that plan is or how the plan is enacted.
Thanks for your opinion 🙂
 
It is about how God used the nation Israel, generally, and Jacob, Esau, and Pharaoh specifically to bring salvation to the world. It is not giving specifics of what that plan is or how the plan is enacted.
It's not about giving salvation to the entire world. That is called "universalism" and was condemned by the Church very early on in councils.
 
Previously you have written, "Romans 9:16 is not a statement about salvation of anyone." Now you say Romans 9 is about salvation.

It's hard to keep up with that kind of obfuscature.
Good catch...

I'm not against opposing opinions being here; it helps our side when you catch them. But the part to be concerned about is, the stragglers they catch. They are not going to catch you and me, just deceive the 'Elect unto Service' if at all possible...
 
Okay Jim. Whenever you are ready, you let me know.

I’ll be waiting 😎

Hope this helps
Ready for what? This is post #388 and there is no resolution yet on even the opening post.
It's not about giving salvation to the entire world. That is called "universalism" and was condemned by the Church very early on in councils.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Yeah, I know that wasn't really the world, that was just the elect.
 
Good catch...

I'm not against opposing opinions being here; it helps our side when you catch them. But the part to be concerned about is, the stragglers they catch. They are not going to catch you and me, just deceive the 'Elect unto Service' if at all possible...
I've been doing this too long 🤣
 
Ready for what? This is post #388 and there is no resolution yet on even the opening post.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Yeah, I know that wasn't really the world, that was just the elect.
No, "whosoever" is not everybody. That's basic English language comprehension. The rest of your commentary on John 3 is inapplicable.

The words "world" "all" and similar words are often counterbalanced in scripture, either with other words such as "many" instead of "all" or through comparative analysis of words in language structures and the history of language usage, so that "world" can have local meaning, international meaning (the earth) or universal meaning which would be the universe itself completely.

By comparing scripture as a whole, we come to understand that when Jesus said "the world" he was referring to the kingdom of darkness that is ruled by the Devil, and we also understand that people go to hell by the decree of God, that the word "whosoever" does not meaning EVERYBODY EVER, and there is no reason to even think it does. You might be confusing the offer of the Gospel with the actual number of humans that accept it eventually.
 
Ready for what? This is post #388 and there is no resolution yet on even the opening post.
Huh. You must prove your free will theology. That’s your burden. 😎

If you cant, then don’t
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Yeah, I know that wasn't really the world, that was just the elect.
Why should anyone believe you? Seems you make a practice of throwing out a verse applying your meaning to it. Then expecting someone to believe you?

Haha

😎
 
It's not about giving salvation to the entire world. That is called "universalism" and was condemned by the Church very early on in councils.
You’ll notice many inconsistencies with his humanistic theology. He can’t quite harmonize it with scripture. 😁
 
No, "whosoever" is not everybody. That's basic English language comprehension. The rest of your commentary on John 3 is inapplicable.

The words "world" "all" and similar words are often counterbalanced in scripture, either with other words such as "many" instead of "all" or through comparative analysis of words in language structures and the history of language usage, so that "world" can have local meaning, international meaning (the earth) or universal meaning which would be the universe itself completely.

By comparing scripture as a whole, we come to understand that when Jesus said "the world" he was referring to the kingdom of darkness that is ruled by the Devil, and we also understand that people go to hell by the decree of God, that the word "whosoever" does not meaning EVERYBODY EVER, and there is no reason to even think it does. You might be confusing the offer of the Gospel with the actual number of humans that accept it eventually.
You’re a pretty reasonable guy and pretty smart. Hopefully he will consider what you have to say. 🤔
 
You’re a pretty reasonable guy and pretty smart. Hopefully he will consider what you have to say. 🤔
Thanks for your compliments. I don't think I am smart. But the logical conclusion of free willism is salvation is universalism by taking words like "all" to mean everybody can be saved in the face of the absolute fact that they aren't according to the Bible. Maybe this isn't getting through properly, I'm pretty sure what it means is obvious. But if others cannot see it that way, I guess I ought to learn something new. I'm still waiting.
 
Maybe this isn't getting through properly, I'm pretty sure what it means is obvious.
It’s not getting through. I think some people need to actually think things out. You’re giving @JIM some challenges, perhaps he’s young in the faith? Hope he considers it
But if others cannot see it that way, I guess I ought to learn something new. I'm still waiting.
We all constantly learn
 
It’s not getting through. I think some people need to actually think things out. You’re giving @JIM some challenges, perhaps he’s young in the faith? Hope he considers it

We all constantly learn
I constantly learn. Some things I have learnt past tense.
 
When they encounter a Fundamental they shouldn't ignore, but keep on ignoring it; that's Cognitive Dissonance...

Or worse...

For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.
II Timothy 3:6‭-‬9 NKJV
Let the likes of Civic and JIM be here; the Bible says their Folly will be manifest to All. People who recognize they can't overturn your point, but keep on with their Error; are always learning but never coming to the Knowledge of the Truth. These people take Captives from the gullible. This HAS to be true; when you keep teaching a Lie, what else can it be? I would encourage JIM to embrace every truth of the Bible. I would encourage every Lurker to double check what he says...

Be a Berean...
 
Last edited:
Ready for what? This is post #388 and there is no resolution yet on even the opening post.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Yeah, I know that wasn't really the world, that was just the elect.
I see a certain free willer once write: “I will always mention the scriptures about free will, human responsibility and synergism. I’m a thorn in the flesh lol🙂

@JIM
Believe me, your not a thorn in the flesh, if you think you are, you
flatter yourself.

And you won’t find any scriptures that teach free will in salvation.

I just want you to know, please do mention thoughts about these things.
 
Foreknowledge is not predestination. Foreknowledge is knowledge of what they were going to do.
If it means foreknowledge of what they were going to do then Romans 9:6-16 would have no meaning and no valid reason for Paul to say what He did about Esu and Jacob. It can't be both election before they had done anything good or bad and also be election by the knowledge of what they were going to do.

And make no mistake about it election unto salvation is what Paul was talking about as nothing else fits with the context. Paul uses that example to drive home his point without equivocation. 15. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion?" So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.
 
Back
Top