Salvation belongs to the Lord.

[K2CHRIST]

Respectfully, you have misunderstood many things I say, and while it could be asserted that for some reason you have freely chosen not to hear me, yet in all honesty before God, I know that you have not freely chosen to do so. You have listened to me willingly and courteously, and yet you have not heard what I say so as to understand it. Respectfully and forthrightly, it appears to me that you don't actually understand what Freewill means and the implications thereof.

Prov 8:12 I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge and discretion. I have even given scripture showing God hiding valuable wisdom from otherwise wise and prudent people, and revealing it to little children, so that little children can sometimes know better than those who are wise and prudent adults. Hence my moniker childeye. My point was to show that people don't choose to listen or not listen in a scenario where God is hiding information from some, and revealing it to others.. Information is the knowledge that we reason upon, we then make our conclusions based upon that information, and ultimately decide accordingly. Vanity should be curtailed by such revelation that God can do this. But rather than agree that God is able to change what people will choose according to His power illustrated by this scripture and many more, instead, in vanity many overlook this, and instead insist that we still make the choice to listen and not listen as though this is applicable in a situation where God hides and reveals wisdom.

People who insist that they have a freewill, and that all people do, tend to conflate choice with choice, without even realizing it. For the term 'choice' has two different meanings, with only one meaning being applicable to proceeding from the will of the person. The two different meanings are choice/option, and choice/decision. In the moral purview, there is a choice/decision between the two directions/options. But since there is no such thing in the moral purview as a freely made option/choice, the existence of good and evil cannot be proof that the will of the person who decides between the two is a freewill. So it is, that freewill believers tend to convince themselves that they and others have a freewill by conflating the term choice/option with choice/decision. Respectfully, above it appears that you do this very thing, by saying that since there is a choice/option to listen or not listen, then it makes no sense that we don't have a freewill. Or as you said concerning King Solomon, "he still had choices", as if therefore it must necessarily follow that his will is free.

But you and I do agree that all men are subject to vanity and that is enough Truth, to then prove that men do not have a freewill. For if you recall, I have earlier pointed out, that the reason why people choose not to listen to the call to repentance is because of this vanity.
Vanity alters the will and corrupts the way a person sees things and the thought process. To think that I can voluntarily choose to not listen to God, and miss nothing, is vanity. This is somewhat hard to ponder due to semantics. For to think I might inadveratantly choose to not listen to God and miss something very important, is humility.

Childeye, thanks for posting and for the information you are sharing.

When I post, I try to pick up something that I think a comment is worth making on, so I don't usually comment on everything a person posts. And in general the point I think is most important to make is that God wants a relationship with His creation. So the biggest problem I generally have with many that focus on predestination is that they miss that God does indeed want a relationship with His creation. So while I realize that God knows that some people will not ever turn to Him, because He knows because He created them, that does not mean that He does not want them to turn to Him! That is in general the problem I have with your postings. It's not that all your posting and thinking is like that but some of it.

It is written that God desires that none should perish. That is in the Scriptures, and no matter whatever other Scriptures you have, it goes along with that Scriptures and does not conflict it. So if for example God hides Himself, and He does do that at times, that hiding is an effort by God to get the person to turn to Him. I'm not sure that is clear in your post!

So the post is good, but is missing this understanding that God does not want any to perish. And when I talk to the Lord and listen to what He tells me daily, it becomes impossible to miss how He feels about people. He really really does care for them, so He really really wants all people to seek Him, talk to Him, and especially listen to Him. And He gave us life, which means we can choose. And He gives us freedom. It is Satan that does want us to have freedom. So we have with God a freewill. We can seek Him and He said all those who seek find.

Yet the person with a lot of pride (and we all have some vanity) tends to lean on his own understanding. That keep them from seeking God, and giving their attention to God. So what might you do to get someone's attention who doesn't want to give it to you. How about a game of hide and seek, or what we might call "Peek-a Boo". So God doesn't hide to not be found, but God hides so that He might be sought after. If a person reads and studies the Scriptures but does not regularly talk to and listen to the Lord, they might not understanding this. Because it is the Lord who gives understanding, not our interpretation of the Scriptures.

The Lord once told me, "Karl people don't have understanding because they don't read the Scriptures with understanding but their understanding, understand?"

So childeye, you write that Salvation belongs to the Lord and so it does and you are correct to right that. But the writing also gives an impression to people that God may not want all people to turn to Him, or perhaps God made it so that they can not turn to Him, and that conclusion is desperately wrong. We never want to give them that impression. And perhaps you never meant to give such and impression, but when preaching predestination it is important to note that He wants all people listening to Him and He said that all who seek find. All who seek find. That is to say, that all who seek find. So I tell them to seek, because they will find Him, and they will then find that He always cared for them, no matter who they are or have been. He wants that none should perish. That is my point.

So childeye, I like your posts and especially your thread, and I am not against you but I am fully committed to get people to seek the Lord our God. They and we can hear from Him everyday and are told to encourage each other day after day as long as "Today is called today". I'm sorry if I don't say it as well as the Lord, but Today we can hear from the Lord. Not just you and I childeye, but even the person that God is hiding from and turn to God and He will say something like "Peek-a boo" and will surprise them who He was hiding from. I know that because I know God. I also know that some will never turn to God, and that breaks my heart. So I post.

Thanks again for your threads

 

[childeye]

="K2CHRIST, post: 1205471,

So childeye, you write that Salvation belongs to the Lord and so it does and you are correct to right that. But the writing also gives an impression to people that God may not want all people to turn to Him, or perhaps God made it so that they can not turn to Him, and that conclusion is desperately wrong. We never want to give them that impression. And perhaps you never meant to give such and impression, but when preaching predestination it is important to note that He wants all people listening to Him and He said that all who seek find. All who seek find. That is to say, that all who seek find. So I tell them to seek, because they will find Him, and they will then find that He always cared for them, no matter who they are or have been. He wants that none should perish. That is my point.

Just for the record, this is not my thread. I wish to address this point raised above. I've never preached that God wants any to perish, nor do I believe that. I'm only arguing against freewill. To you and to others, your question to me should be, How then do people perish if you believe God did not want anyone to perish, unless it happens by their own freewill?

The answer is, by their corrupted will.

 

[Cygnus]

Why don't you exegete the meaning of Titus 2:11 (ESV) in context and tell us its meaning?

Lets start here....considering all people are not saved....the all doesn't refer to every human. Do you agree?

 

[Cygnus]

Oz has a valid point. I've seen you accuse or question others of universalism and that is a strong statement. You have no doubt read enough of him to know he does not support universalism. True universalism is heresy and isn't even permitted on CFnet. Based on the one statement that you drew your conclusion on, would you say 1 Timothy 2:4 preaches this theology? I'll answer for you. No, you wouldn't.

Kindly refrain from planting this notion in the camp of others unless they are blatantly stating that all will have salvation and no one will be lost. You are better than that.

That might be true....it takes a few post to see where a person is coming from. Plus, sometimes we mix up posters. Secondly I don't think I accused Oz....if I recall correctly, I only inquired.

 

[OzSpen]

Lets start here....considering all people are not saved....the all doesn't refer to every human. Do you agree?

You are not exegeting Titus 2:11 (ESV) with those kinds of statements and your question. The meaning revolves around the meaning of 'appeared' and to what/whom it refers.

Oz

 

[K2CHRIST]

Just for the record, this is not my thread. I wish to address this point raised above. I've never preached that God wants any to perish, nor do I believe that. I'm only arguing against freewill. To you and to others, your question to me should be, How then do people perish if you believe God did not want anyone to perish, unless it happens by their own freewill?

The answer is, by their corrupted will.

Ok - we are getting closer to an understanding, but if not their own freewill and instead by their corrupted will, doesn't that then place the entire blame on the one who corrupted their will? If that the case how can a just God then bring punishment on them. A just God can't. So there must be some freedom for man to participate with or agree with the corruption.

That is to say, I believe Adam and Eve could have freely chosen to not eat of the wrong tree when tempted, but they didn't. I believe God must have know that, but it was still their choice and a free choice at that. And I believe this goes on today. We could choose the Lord, but we don't. Perhaps the pattern was set by Adam and Eve, and perhaps we are just like them, but we could choose different though we don't. The reason we don't is not because we don't have freewill but because we always freely choose our way instead of God's. God knows, and can save some, but we are still to blame. And I see an advantage to have it this way.

If I have no freewill and I am given a corrupted will by God, it then becomes and excuse to blame and even justly blame God. If men have a freewill but don't use it to chose God then all men are justly guilty before God because they chose themselves instead of God. This then magnifies a God who still saves who He will by His grace.

And so while I know you actually said God want any to perish, I see where the concept of us having a corrupted will leads to the conclusion that God must want people to perish, despite what He says about HIs desire, simply because we would have been given a will that can't choose God as opposed to won't chose God.

Thanks again childeye, for the comments

 

[K2CHRIST]

From what I have read of Calvin, I don't think him to be a true Calvinist as we so often think of them. Of course our thinking of what a true Calvinist is probably wrong. But why did "Calvinst" wind up being something bad to many. I believe we see a problem of blaming God is some of the predestination preaching, and we know that God is not to blame!

So if I think God is to blame then my theology (understanding of God) is going to reflect that thinking. If God made me to where I can not freely choose then He is to blame for my actions, and so predestination is presented incorrectly. We must understand that God made us and knows what He made, but also understand that there has always been freedom in Jesus Christ through whom all things were made. So is can and never was a case of we couldn't choose God but rather a case that we wouldn't choose God, which I believe is close to what John Calvin was actually preaching.

If we have changed the wouldn't seek God to couldn't seek God then we need to seriously look at ourselves, because aren't we indeed blaming God? I have done that, and have seen it was a problem. I have at times said to God, "Well, you made me this way!" I was wrong. I gave me a freedom to choose good or evil and I should quite coming into agreement with that snake who says to have eat of that which gives me knowledge of both good and evil. I need to choose to eat only of that which is good (God) and quite blaming God for the times I don't.

Yeah, I realize that because of my vanity and pride I won't choose God unless He shows me mercy, and gives me His grace. So all the glory goes to God who forgives my foolishness for choosing my thinking over His. I should choose His thinking which means I should choose to listen to what He has to say do it. I should seek the counsel, advice, and even friendship the Lord has to offer. I don't always do that and I see that others are like me. So I preach Jesus Christ both so others will seek Him, but more importantly to me, so that I will remember to seek Him, by using my freewill.

 

[Cygnus]

You are not exegeting Titus 2:11 (ESV) with those kinds of statements and your question. The meaning revolves around the meaning of 'appeared' and to what/whom it refers.

Oz

If that's what you want to think..then go ahead. I think in our conversation we should first settle who the "all" isn't.

I think we both agree the all isn't every human as you don't accept universalism.

So, appearing? For the grace of God has appeared......Could appeared = Jesus?

 

[OzSpen]

If that's what you want to think..then go ahead. I think in our conversation we should first settle who the "all" isn't.

I think we both agree the all isn't every human as you don't accept universalism.

So, appearing? For the grace of God has appeared......Could appeared = Jesus?

I have done my exegesis of the Greek text and have concluded differently from you. See, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11.

Who is ALL? It is stated clearly in Titus 2:11 (ESV) and the exegesis I provided in that link. God's grace through Jesus appeared for all human beings. Those who want to make this limited atonement struggle to be consistent with the Greek text and context.

Jesus' dying for the benefit of all people does NOT promote the doctrine of Universalism. This heretical doctrine believes ALL people will be saved. We know from Matt 25: 41, 46 (ESV) that this is not so. Titus 2:11 (ESV) does not teach Universalism. The Christian Universalist Association gives its definition of universal salvation, which is one of its fundamental beliefs:

We believe in the full and final triumph of the grace of God over the powers of sin and death: that the mercy and forgiveness of God are victorious; that this victory of redemption is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus; and that, therefore, no human being will be condemned or allowed to suffer pain and separation forever.

That is an heretical doctrine that contradicts Scripture.

I agree with you that 'appeared' refers to the appearing of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, that led to the passion-resurrection and redemption for those who believe. However, Titus 2:11 (ESV) teaches, 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'. This means that God's grace through Jesus' appearance in incarnation and death and resurrection has brought salvation 'for the benefit' of all people. That benefit will only be experienced by those who repent, seek God's forgiveness and by faith receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

I have done my exegesis of the Greek text and have concluded differently from you. See, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11.

Who is ALL? It is stated clearly in Titus 2:11 (ESV) and the exegesis I provided in that link. God's grace through Jesus appeared for all human beings. Those who want to make this limited atonement struggle to be consistent with the Greek text and context.

Jesus' dying for the benefit of all people does NOT promote the doctrine of Universalism. This heretical doctrine believes ALL people will be saved. We know from Matt 25: 41, 46 (ESV) that this is not so. Titus 2:11 (ESV) does not teach Universalism. The Christian Universalist Association gives its definition of universal salvation, which is one of its fundamental beliefs:


That is an heretical doctrine that contradicts Scripture.

I agree with you that 'appeared' refers to the appearing of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, that led to the passion-resurrection and redemption for those who believe. However, Titus 2:11 (ESV) teaches, 'For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people'. This means that God's grace through Jesus' appearance in incarnation and death and resurrection has brought salvation 'for the benefit' of all people. That benefit will only be experienced by those who repent, seek God's forgiveness and by faith receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

Oz

In agreement OzSpen
I wonder if Paul had just used the word "nationalities " if there would be less debate on the subject.

And the Gospel message via apostles and disciples had been declared in every nation known at that time. (North and South America and Australia unknown at that time)

Where before a religion was usually race specific and focused this Gospel was for everyone, everywhere as God being their creator. All they needed to do was believe and subscribe to the very short list of requirements (no other gods and etc that the Jerusalem council had set forth in Acts)

 

[OzSpen]

In agreement OzSpen
I wonder if Paul had just used the word "nationalities " if there would be less debate on the subject.

And the Gospel message via apostles and disciples had been declared in every nation known at that time. (North and South America and Australia unknown at that time)

Where before a religion was usually race specific and focused this Gospel was for everyone, everywhere as God being their creator. All they needed to do was believe and subscribe to the very short list of requirements (no other gods and etc that the Jerusalem council had set forth in Acts)

John,

All nationalities or all groups of people is how I've read some Calvinists speak of 'all people' or 'all men' (other verses as well). I think 'all nationalities' would raise as much ire as 'all people' because 'all nationalities' would clash with 'the world' (John 3:16 ESV). Perhaps John 3:16 (ESV) should have been changed to 'God so loved the nationalities of the world' to demonstrate that some/many individuals would be left out of God's love.

In fact, your suggestion of 'all nationalities' is what John Calvin envisaged in his commentary on Titus 2:11 (ESV). Of this portion 'all men', he wrote in Calvin’s commentary on Titus 2:11:

Bringing salvation to all men, That it is common to all is expressly testified by him on account of the slaves of whom he had spoken. Yet he does not mean individual men, but rather describes individual classes, or various ranks of life. And this is not a little emphatic, that the grace of God hath let itself down even to the race of slaves; for, since God does not despise men of the lowest and most degraded condition, it would be highly unreasonable that we should be negligent and slothful to embrace his goodness.

I find that to be eisegesis of the text, bringing into the text what it does not say.

I consider that God provided revelation of exactly what he wanted. In agreement with you, I consider that this verse does not speak of God's grace appearing for the salvation of all nationalities, tribes or groups but for everyone, everywhere, including the then unknown Americans, Australiana, etc.

View attachment 9037

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

John,

All nationalities or all groups of people is how I've read some Calvinists speak of 'all people' or 'all men' (other verses as well). I think 'all nationalities' would raise as much ire as 'all people' because 'all nationalities' would clash with 'the world' (John 3:16 ESV). Perhaps John 3:16 (ESV) should have been changed to 'God so loved the nationalities of the world' to demonstrate that some/many individuals would be left out of God's love.

In fact, your suggestion of 'all nationalities' is what John Calvin envisaged in his commentary on Titus 2:11 (ESV). Of this portion 'all men', he wrote in Calvin’s commentary on Titus 2:11:



I find that to be eisegesis of the text, bringing into the text what it does not say.

I consider that God provided revelation of exactly what he wanted. In agreement with you, I consider that this verse does not speak of God's grace appearing for the salvation of all nationalities, tribes or groups but for everyone, everywhere, including the then unknown Americans, Australiana, etc.

View attachment 9037

Oz

Good points...I hadn't considered that but you are correct.

All men means all people...

People to this day labor to bring the Gospel message to every nook and cranny of the world to make sure that everyone has access to bibles in their own language.
The Wycliffe foundation even provides audio bibles (solar or hand crank) in every language and dialect around the world to assist missionaries. The work continues...

Can you please explain more about the verb used to say "has appeared".

In English this is past tense...as if it is completed and done.
But we know that the work continues today.

 

[OzSpen]

Good points...I hadn't considered that but you are correct.

All men means all people...

People to this day labor to bring the Gospel message to every nook and cranny of the world to make sure that everyone has access to bibles in their own language.
The Wycliffe foundation even provides audio bibles (solar or hand crank) in every language and dialect around the world to assist missionaries. The work continues...

Can you please explain more about the verb used to say "has appeared".

In English this is past tense...as if it is completed and done.
But we know that the work continues today.

John,

I have explained the meaning of 'appeared' in my article, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11

John, I understood your read and are able to exegete NT Greek. Is that the case?

Oz

 

[JohnDB]

John,

I have explained the meaning of 'appeared' in my article, How to interpret ‘appeared’ in Titus 2:11

John, I understood your read and are able to exegete NT Greek. Is that the case?

Oz

My skills have diminished over the years. At one point I was able...and I remember a few things. But since you are an instructor(highly educated at a minimum) of these languages it really wouldn't be prudent for me to do so. I was self taught and never formally trained. I still have my resources and could look but they are at home in Nashville Tennessee and currently i am in Georgia with family.

But I thought that for those simply reading this thread you could explain the disparity between the past tense in English and the verb form in Greek. (And the room here currently is full of yelling and screaming kids and other family... concentration is difficult at best)

Also...
I've seen many discussions about verb tenses on these forums. Your clarification of the tenses will be most helpful in giving insights to the average person who picks up a Greek dictionary.

 

[childeye]

Ok - we are getting closer to an understanding, but if not their own freewill and instead by their corrupted will, doesn't that then place the entire blame on the one who corrupted their will? If that the case how can a just God then bring punishment on them. A just God can't. So there must be some freedom for man to participate with or agree with the corruption.

I would answer directly, but we're out of context. The question is, do those who perish have a free will or a corrupt will when they choose not to believe the Truth? I believe that their will is corrupt, because since they don't believe the Truth, then by default they are held captive to a lie. Here is some scripture to support my position.
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

That is to say, I believe Adam and Eve could have freely chosen to not eat of the wrong tree when tempted, but they didn't.

Respectfully, it is an assertion that Adam and Eve could have freely chosen not to eat when they were tempted. We don't actually know if they could have, only that they should have. And I honestly believe that they themselves would agree that they should have, and therefore I also must believe they were ignorant when they did it. I don't believe that God punished Adam and Eve. I believe that the hardships they endured were a product of eating of the knowledge of good and evil, and that this is also why God never wanted them to eat of it. But the damage was done, the will had been corrupted, and they now were fated to know hardship and death just as we all are apart from Christ.

I believe God must have know that, but it was still their choice and a free choice at that. And I believe this goes on today. We could choose the Lord, but we don't. Perhaps the pattern was set by Adam and Eve, and perhaps we are just like them, but we could choose different though we don't.

You've said this before as I recall, "we all can freely choose the Lord but we all don't". Maybe it's time to find out why we don't, rather than keep claiming that we can because we have a free will. The lesson is about how Adam and Eve were deceived, and we must learn and understand how, so that we ourselves will not also be deceived. We will learn nothing of value by saying they could have chosen otherwise but just didn't. This is why Paul says this:
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The following statement is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning: "The reason why men can choose to do evil is because they can choose to do evil".

We're all free to choose th reason we don't is not because we don't have freewill but because we always freely choose our way instead of God's. God knows, and can save some, but we are still to blame. And I see an advantage to have it this way.
If I have no freewill and I am given a corrupted will by God, it then becomes and excuse to blame and even justly blame God.
If men have a freewill but don't use it to chose God then all men are justly guilty before God because they chose themselves instead of God. This then magnifies a God who still saves who He will by His grace.

But God did not give us a corrupt will, so He is not to be blamed. He gave us a will which scripture describes as innocent and without any knowledge of good and evil. We lost that innocence and became corrupt through believing in a lie and eating from the knowledge of good and evil. I think scripture is very clear on this.
If God gave mankind a free will to choose whether to obey or disobey Him, then why does scripture say the woman was beguiled through subtlety by the most cunning of all of God's creatures? Why does Paul fear that we too will be beguiled by Satan through his subtlety?

And so while I know you actually said God want any to perish, I see where the concept of us having a corrupted will leads to the conclusion that God must want people to perish, despite what He says about HIs desire, simply because we would have been given a will that can't choose God as opposed to won't chose God.

As I said God did not give us a corrupt will. God gave us a will that was innocent and free of the knowledge of good and evil, and we had always trusted and obeyed God with that will, right up to the point where Satan introduced a lie about God. Scripture is clear on this, and it is also clear that Satan beguiled Eve which is where the term gullible comes from. We also know that they saw that they were naked after eating of the forbidden knowledge which led to death, and we know that they hid from God so that He would not see their naked bodies, whereas before they didn't care and were pure of heart. So therefore we know that the will has been corrupted through the knowledge of good and evil through a lie about God, and that is why it is only through belief in the Truth, that we can be set free from the slavery to sin.

 

[OzSpen]

My skills have diminished over the years. At one point I was able...and I remember a few things. But since you are an instructor(highly educated at a minimum) of these languages it really wouldn't be prudent for me to do so. I was self taught and never formally trained. I still have my resources and could look but they are at home in Nashville Tennessee and currently i am in Georgia with family.

But I thought that for those simply reading this thread you could explain the disparity between the past tense in English and the verb form in Greek. (And the room here currently is full of yelling and screaming kids and other family... concentration is difficult at best)

John,

Titus 2:11 (Greek NT) uses epepane that is translated as, 'has appeared' (NIV, ESV). The Greek is aorist passive, indicative of the verb, epiphaino.

The Greek tenses represent the kind of action as prominent, rather than the time of action. The Present and Imperfect tenses are linear tenses that can be represented by a line or a line or dots:
____________________________________ or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Present is in the present time while Imperfect is in the past - but both represent continuous/continual action.)

However, the Aorist is a punctiliar (or point) tense which can be diagrammed as a single dot

Take no notice of the largeness of the dot. The action of the aorist tense is that of something that simply happens. There is no thought of the continuing or frequency of action (Wenham 1965).

The passive voice indicates that the subject was acted upon. If the subject was doing the action, the active voice would be used.

Let's apply that to Titus 2:11 and the aorist, passive, indicative, epepane.

• Since epepane is the passive voice, something is acting on this and that something is 'the grace of God'.
• The mood of a verb indicates the mode or manner of the action of a verb. The indicative mood makes a statement or asks a question. Here, epepane is indicative mood, thus meaning it is making a statement.
• Epepane is aorist tense, so it means that something appeared at a point in time. However, since it has no sigma (s) in its conjugation, that means it is the second aorist tense. That gets a bit technical with the conjugation (i.e. form) of the verb, but the meaning of the aorist is the same for the action of the second aorist.

In English, when we translate as 'has appeared' (NIV, ESV), it indicates it has appeared in the past but there is no indication of the kind of action. 'Has appeared' is meant to bring out the passive voice of action happening by someone/something, i.e. 'the grace of God'. So the aorist could be translated as 'did appear' or 'has appeared', as long as one understands it is seen as a punctiliar action happening to someone/something, i.e. 'to all people'.

What is the meaning of the verb, epiphaino? In the passive voice it means 'show oneself, make an appearance' and in Titus 2:11 refers to the grace of God that has appeared (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:304). Since the appearance of the grace of God happened (appeared), it seems that the interpretation is meant to refer to the Epiphany of Jesus, the Incarnation (Robertson 1931:604).

If this is too technical for some, please let me know & I'll try to break down further.

Oz

Bibliography
Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).

Robertson, A T 1931. Word pictures in the New Testament: The epistles of Paul, vol 4. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

Wenham, J W 1965. The elements of New Testament Greek (based on the earlier work by H P V Nunn). London / New York NY: Cambridge University Press.

 

[K2CHRIST]

The question is, do those who perish have a free will or a corrupt will when they choose not to believe the Truth? I believe that their will is corrupt, because since they don't believe the Truth, then by default they are held captive to a lie. Here is some scripture to support my position.
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Respectfully, it is an assertion that Adam and Eve could have freely chosen not to eat when they were tempted. We don't actually know if they could have, only that they should have. And I honestly believe that they themselves would agree that they should have, and therefore I also must believe they were ignorant when they did it. I don't believe that God punished Adam and Eve. I believe that the hardships they endured were a product of eating of the knowledge of good and evil, and that this is also why God never wanted them to eat of it. But the damage was done, the will had been corrupted, and they now were fated to know hardship and death just as we all are apart from Christ.

You've said this before as I recall, "we all can freely choose the Lord but we all don't". Maybe it's time to find out why we don't, rather than keep claiming that we can because we have a free will. The lesson is about how Adam and Eve were deceived, and we must learn and understand how, so that we ourselves will not also be deceived. We will learn nothing of value by saying they could have chosen otherwise but just didn't. This is why Paul says this:
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
The following statement is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning: "The reason why men can choose to do evil is because they can choose to do evil".


But God did not give us a corrupt will, so He is not to be blamed. He gave us a will which scripture describes as innocent and without any knowledge of good and evil. We lost that innocence and became corrupt through believing in a lie and eating from the knowledge of good and evil. I think scripture is very clear on this.
If God gave mankind a free will to choose whether to obey or disobey Him, then why does scripture say the woman was beguiled through subtlety by the most cunning of all of God's creatures? Why does Paul fear that we too will be beguiled by Satan through his subtlety?

As I said God did not give us a corrupt will. God gave us a will that was innocent and free of the knowledge of good and evil, and we had always trusted and obeyed God with that will, right up to the point where Satan introduced a lie about God. Scripture is clear on this, and it is also clear that Satan beguiled Eve which is where the term gullible comes from. We also know that they saw that they were naked after eating of the forbidden knowledge which led to death, and we know that they hid from God so that He would not see their naked bodies, whereas before they didn't care and were pure of heart. So therefore we know that the will has been corrupted through the knowledge of good and evil through a lie about God, and that is why it is only through belief in the Truth, that we can be set free from the slavery to sin.

Well, I have enjoyed the discussion. I am more and more getting an idea of exactly where you are coming from, but think it is still a bit off.

You seem to believe that because they are corrupted and defiled, that they no longer have a free will. So you say the have a corrupted will. I agree they are corrupted, and that corruption came in because they did not choose the truth, but I don't see how that changed their will, but rather that their incorrect use of their freewill corrupted them. We agree that God did not give them a corrupted will, so we don't seem to agree upon whether the corruption changed the way God made them or whether their use of what God made them spoiled them so that they could will to choose God.

I think they could, despite the corruption, but they won't for a couple of reasons.

First is that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Rom 3:23) So then all have been corrupted, yet some are saved by the grace of God. So I have to reject the reasoning the men can't turn back to God simply because some do. And if are to say that some people's will were corrupted and some were not, then I have to reference that we (men) were created in His image not in a variety of images. It goes back to the premise the all men were created equal, at least in a spiritual sense. So it must be that some won't because some men do. Perhaps some do because they have been elected by God, but even the elect were not better otherwise they might have a reason to boast that God made them better.

The other strong reason for not agreeing with your conclusion is the command to preach the good news to the end of the earth. We don't have a gospel message the is only preached to a chosen group. The gospel is for everyone, it's only that some don't accept it. Thus they must have a will that can but won't accept it. So all were unbelievers and corrupted by sin and must believe, and since that message is to all, even the ones who are not going to believe, their must be an expectation that they could chose to believe. And that fact that their is a separate place called hell as a place of torment, then we see a punishment for not believing. If they couldn't and some could then the punishment is unfair and unjust, and God is not unjust.

So concerning the two verses you quoted

Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The unbeliever is defiled, but we see unbelievers repent. So we can't conclude that they can't choose to repent! Titus 1:15 is not saying they can't repent. And is that what Paul is explaining to Titus

Titus 1:13... For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith.

If men don't have a freedom of will it makes no sense for Paul to write to reprove them!!

And concerning 2 Cor 4:4 in which the god of this world hath blinded, it would make no sense for the god of this world to blind them if it wasn't possible for them to choose differently. The blinding of them is only needed if they could still choose God.

So I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas. It has forced me to consider and think. And even in doing that it has increased my understanding. Again, I do like your posts childeye.

 

[childeye]

You seem to believe that because they are corrupted and defiled, that they no longer have a free will.

Actually I'm saying that there exists a such thing as purity of heart, mind and soul, and also there exists a corruption of that purity. Hence when the heart is corrupted, so is the will. As I have said before, I'm trying to point out that there is no such thing as free-will in.... the moral/immoral purview. And that is according to the dictionary definition of the term free will. You therefore would first have to understand what the term free-will actually means, and then apply it to the moral purview, before you could adequately evaluate my claim.

The dictionary definition of Free will means to be self-determined, independent, insubordinate. Now apply it to the moral/immoral purview, so as to say, that we don't need the one True God to be righteous because we are self determined or independent. Therefore I am claiming that we do indeed need the Spirit of the One True God to be righteous, and therefore we are not self determined nor independent in the moral/immoral purview.

So I have to reject the reasoning the men can't turn back to God simply because some do.

Respectfully, this is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. It happens by conflating choice/option with choice /decision and is the product of reasoning upon free will as a substantive Truth rather than an equivocation. For example you could have just as easily concluded the exact opposite of your initial claim based on the same free will reasoning, "I have to reject the reasoning that men can turn back to God simply because some don't". This is why free will does not exist in the moral/immoral purview and is therefore proof of God's existence. Here are more examples of this phenomenon:

The reason why people can choose to do good is because they can choose to do good.
The reason why people choose to do evil is because they could have chosen to do good.
The reason why some people don't choose God is because they chose not to.
We know that some people don't choose God because they had a choice.
We know that all people can choose to accept Christ because some people do.
We know that some people don't choose to follow God, therefore they could have chosen to.
We know that some people have chosen not to believe, therefore they had a choice.
The reason why some believe and some don't is because anyone can but they don't.
The reason why Eve could have chosen not to eat is because there was a choice.
The reason we know that Eve freely chose to eat is because there was a free choice.
We know why people obey because they chose to.
We can choose to disobey therefore we can choose to obey.
I could choose to obey therefore they could choose to not disobey.
I can believe that God's a liar, but I have chosen to believe He is not.

 

[Jim Parker]

As I have said before, I'm trying to point out that there is no such thing as free-will

If man has no free will then man is not guilty of any sin.

 

[childeye]

If man has no free will then man is not guilty of any sin.

To which free will are you referring? The Old Testament Free will which freely chooses life or death by choosing to do or not do these things contained in the law, or the New Testament Free will, that honestly denies that we are able to freely choose life and freely choose to do these things contained in the law, and therefore turn to God to seek a righteousness that can only come by grace through faith? For to me the first one makes a man guilty, but the second one removes the guilt.

The dictionary definition of Free will means to be self-determined, independent, insubordinate. Now apply it to the moral/immoral purview, so as to say, that we don't need the one True God to be righteous, because we are self determined or independent and can freely choose to do, or not do, righteous acts, and do or not do, unrighteous acts. Therefore I am claiming that we do indeed need the Spirit of the One True God to be righteous, and therefore we are not self determined nor independent in the moral/immoral purview.
Romans 9:30
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

Romans 9:31
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Matthew 5:6
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Romans 4:7, 8.
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin
Hebrews 10
10 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year

22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Acts 15:8-11.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.
23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.