Awww, Shucks!

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

That is not what Jesus taught

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

John 6:44*For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.

You're just used to seeing those verses through your own Calvinist lens.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.

John 6:44*For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up

Read the verse again Libby it doesn't say that God draws ALL men now does it?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

How does that negate what I have said? Yes, the Father draws all of us, and those he knows in advance will follow Christ, are chosen and given to him.

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

Who will come to Jesus according to verse 37?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

John 6:36*But you haven’t believed in me even though you have seen me. 37*However, those the Father has given me will come to me, and I will never reject them.

Who will come to Jesus according to verse 37?

Those the Father has given him. (Because he knew in advance who would accept him)

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Those the Father has given him. (Because he knew in advance who would accept him)

But how can they accept him unless they were given to the Son by the Father?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But how can they accept him unless they were given to the Son by the Father?

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

Yes God knew in advance, as it was He alone who predestined the very people he saw in advance!

The foreknowledge of God does not happen "before" the predestination of God.....

Read the verse!.......

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Libby

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

see, this is the 'safe' thinking way at work...

It makes you feel safe to think that God was just sitting around and noticed that in the future some people believed in him anyway, so he decided to base his predestination on the people he saw in the future believing.


This makes God into a very lazy being........

This is an example of people making their personal god in their own image.

This is an example of a god that is simply 'reacting" to what men are doing...



It's also not what the bible is teaching.
The reason it's not what the Bible is teaching is it makes the "predestination" of people by God happen after the "foreknowledge" of God informs Him of future events that he just simply then 'reacts" to.

Thats not the god of the Bible....

Thats a god that seems trapped in time...

Thats different than the God of the bible, because the God of the Bible does not have this "after".....What I means is that with the true God of the Bible the "predestination" of some people to believe does not come "after" the foreknowledge of God informed him of the future.

The foreknowledge of GOD always happens with the predestination of god....they are all aspects of god and do not happen one after the other....because god has no 'before"...no "after"

Read the verse!

Romans 8:29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, ..."

Notice it says "he also"

Not - "he later"

Not - "he was forced to..."

Not "because of..."




"also"........also ......not after....not before....but just "with"

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Give me a verse that says that babies and young children do not sin.

It's obvious based on the story of David's baby who died at an age of less than one month, using Protestant soteriology. If that baby had sinned, the only way it could have made it to heaven would be by repenting before death. But if the Bible teaches that the baby went to heaven upon dying, then the baby must have committed no sins, since the baby didn't repent of any sins before it died.

BTW I gave you multiple verses that say that ALL have sinned.

If you ***ume "all" refers literally to every human being who was ever conceived or who will ever be conceived, including aborted babies and baby Jesus, then you're ***uming way too much IMO.

Due to the influential nature of John Calvin and his teachings, many people have taught that sin is “p***ed” from one generation to the next. It is believed by many religious people that children “inherit” the sins of their parents. Yet, the Bible pointedly and explicitly teaches that such is not the case.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1201

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

They were given by the Father to the Son, because the Father KNEW IN ADVANCE who would choose him.

But they were unable to come to him unless the Father gave them to the Son.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It's obvious based on the story of David's baby who died at an age of less than one month, using Protestant soteriology.

That doesn't say that the baby didn't sin rather this speaks about accountability. These are two different issues.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

That doesn't say that the baby didn't sin rather this speaks about accountability. These are two different issues.

No, you're not understanding. It also gives the reason why babies don't sin...the one I explained twice, about Adam and Eve not sinning until they ate from the tree of "good and evil" and understood the difference.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But they were unable to come to him unless the Father gave them to the Son.

Yes. But, that doesn't automatically translate into the Father "choosing" who would accept the Son. He did choose, but he chose those whom he knew would accept him. That's the only way that man can still remain culpable for his/her decision. If man doesn't have the "ability" to choose and God actually does the choosing, then man is not responsible for his "unbelief".

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes. But, that doesn't automatically translate into the Father "choosing" who would accept the Son. He did choose, but he chose those whom he knew would accept him.

So he didn't look forward in time and see who would come to Christ by faith?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

So he didn't look forward in time and see who would come to Christ by faith?

Why are you asking that? Of course...that's exactly what I'm saying. He knew in advance who would believe.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Why are you asking that? Of course...that's exactly what I'm saying.

But they couldn't come to Christ without being drawn first so how could he look forward and see who would come to him unless he drew them first?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

No, you're not understanding. It also gives the reason why babies don't sin...the one I explained twice, about Adam and Eve not sinning until they ate from the tree of "good and evil" and understood the difference.

Nothing you have given me shows that babies don't sin. If you disagree give me a verse.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

But they couldn't come to Christ without being drawn first so how could he look forward and see who would come to him unless he drew them first?

You are limiting God, Billy. God is omniscient and sees ALL. He knows who will respond to His drawing and who will not. Plus, as I said before, God does not operate within time and space. He is outside of time in an ever present NOW. That plays into the difference between how we see things and how HE sees things.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

You are limiting God, Billy. God is omniscient and sees ALL. He knows who will respond to His drawing and who will not.

Who would come to Christ on his own without being drawn first?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Nothing you have given me shows that babies don't sin. If you disagree give me a verse.

Well, I disagree. The story of Adam and Eve is a "perfect" example and correlation to why it is babies do not sin....and it is from the Bible.

Do you really believe that embryos sin?

You like to ask dozens of questions, often the same one over and over, even after you have received an adequate answer...but, you seldom, directly, answer my questions. You avoid, because I think you really know that I am right.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Well, I disagree. The story of Adam and Eve is a "perfect" example and correlation to why it is babies do not sin....and it is from the Bible.

Any verses for me?

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

You like to ask dozens of questions, often the same one over and over, even after you have received an adequate answer...but, you seldom, directly, answer my questions. You avoid, because I think you really know that I am right.

I have given you multiple verses that say we all sin. I have asked you to support your position for the Bible by giving me a verse but thus far you have been unable to do so. Should I take your opinions based on your feelings instead of what the Bible teaches?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

I have given you multiple verses that say we all sin. I have asked you to support your position for the Bible by giving me a verse but thus far you have been unable to do so. Should I take your opinions based on your feelings instead of what the Bible teaches?

You are out and out telling untruths, now, Billy. I gave you, not just a verse, but the entire story of Adam and Eve (you do believe that's "biblical"..right???). Therefore, to say my defense is simply based on "feelings" is absolutely UNTRUE.

And, you still haven't answered my question. Do embryos sin? They are human! Are they a part of this ALL you keep citing??

All WILL sin, but I doubt embryos or newborn babes CAN sin. They have not the understanding of right and wrong (just like Adam and Eve) to sin!

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

You are out and out telling untruths, now, Billy. I gave you, not just a verse, but the entire story of Adam and Eve (you do believe that's "biblical"..right???). Therefore, to say my defense is simply based on "feelings" is absolutely UNTRUE.

There is not a single verse that you have given me that says that babies/infants do not sin. If you think you have one then post the verse againand we can look at it.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

There is not a single verse that you have given me that says that babies/infants do not sin. If you think you have one then post the verse againand we can look at it.

Not true.

We're done with this, Billy. You are simply flailing about, trying to make yourself appear to be correct. Anyone who reads this exchange with unbiased eyes will see what you have been doing. You are a master at twisting things about, trying to make it fit your own belief system.