[...] Christianity, there is a camp that believes humans have no free will (illustrated by this post from Parchment and Pen). That our lives, and salvation, are predestined from before the time we are born. [...]

[...] Predesination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9 [...]

All good things must come to an end. So must this thead of comments.

Thanks everyone.

Postroad,
Again you distort the Bible. “Little children” is not a term for the unbaptized, but rather believers who are new to the faith. It has been interpreted this way since the earliest writings of the church we have dating to the 2nd Century. This is confirmed elsewhere in the Bible as well. Paul for instance uses similar terminology when addressing the believers in the Corinthian church.

“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?”

This is done immediately after addressing them this way

” 1Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,

2To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

3Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

It is clearly that though these people are still “worldly” Paul considers them brothers in Christ and having attained salvation.

Furthermore your entire argument is incoherent and illogical because you in essence say that the teachings of the writers of the Bible exclude the writers of the Bible from salvation. For instance Paul clearly had sin in his life after being baptized as did Peter. Yet it is evident from the Bible that they (Paul and Peter) felt assured of their salvation. So surely they didn’t intend the text the way you are reading for if they did they wouldn’t be assured that they would be saved and in fact would openly admit they were going to hell. Yet they didn’t do this thus making your argument ridiculous.

“You are assuming that by people not continually suppress the truth when they come to Christ in faith that somehow means that they do not suppress the truth revealed to them via natural revelation”

The logic goes like this: We know some people do not suppress the truth (which you must admit). Therefore when Paul says something about “men who suppress the truth”, we ought to assume it is just that subset. And that being the case, we have no cause in Ro 1 to say that all men suppress natural revelation.

Futhermore, while Paul says a lot about these people and all the wide and flagrent things they do against decency, he then goes on to discuss gentiles who do what the law requires, because it is written on their hearts (2:14). Does that sound like the same people who are “filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice”. It doesn’t sound like it to me. How can they be totally suppressing everything to do with God, completely filled with wickedness, but then they are doing what the law requires because it is written on their hearts? That doesn’t make sense.

And how much sense does it make for Paul to say that God has revealed so much about himself in in natural revelation that his qualities are “clearly seen, being understood”, and then say that all men don’t see it? That contracts the meaning of “clearly seen” and “understood”.

“Well, it’s an assumption based on what Paul tells us the gospel is. ”

I don’t see how.

“BTW, the gospel of God preached in Mk 1:14 is informed by v. 15: it’s about the kingdom of God coming.”

Yes, the question is why you don’t think all uses of “gospel” should be similarly informed.

“So it’s freedom to be completely convinced by the devil and the world to reject God, but not freedom if God were to convince you with his persuasive ability?”

The issue is not word games about the meaning of freedom, the issue is the Text of Luke 15.

Post,

Since what you are talking about here is so far off topic, this will be my last response to you.

Have you read the book of I Corinthians lately? This is a church, a group of people that Paul addresses as fellow Christians. However, he rebukes them over and over and over for their sinful behavior. But he still refers to them as fellow Christians. Fellow Christians that need to repent and live in a Godly manner and grow up in their walk with God.

I have read it many times and It confuses me to.

I put the ball in your court then.

How should I reconcile the text of 1 John calling those who claim to know him but continue to sin as being liars?

He calls such individuals antichrists here.

1 John 2:17-19 17The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

It apears that some members have broken away.

This is so alarming to the Author that he indicates that the end is imanent.

Ernie,
Either I don’t understand the logic of your position, or it’s contradictory. I don’t know which. The point I would make is that you want God to respond to something that happens in time, but you do and don’t want someone in time to respond to God. Response is language of causation, so you are equally guilty of positing chronological or logical causation.
Are you honestly arguing that God elects to help us to believe because He knows that we will believe anyway? Why do we need to be elected and helped?

“Well, you’re departing from the whole Calvinist argument, and you’ve broken the chain. Maybe I need to help you brush up on Calvinist arguments “these whom He predestined, He also called”
(Romans 8:30 NAS95). It doesn’t say he called a bunch of people, some of whom are predestined, or that those who are predestined AND called are justified. Rather it says those who are predestined are called.”

Yes, I know. I don’t believe that this passage alone argues the exclusivist position. I do still believe that it argues the Calvinistic one however. So the same group who is predestined is the same group who is called is the same group who is justified. This does not mean that no one else is called. Your logic is faulty there. If I say that I invited everyone that I had planned to invite to my party, and they came, that does not mean that I did not invite anyone else. The argument is that those God predestined are called and are justified and are glorified. Now, do we know from other Scripture that those who are predestined and justified and glorified are only those who have faith in the gospel? Yes. But you would not necessarily get that from this passage. Do we likewise know from other Scripture that there are others God calls? Yes, but they are not predestined and therefore not justified and glorified.

John,

“I think the point is, we both acknowledge that some people do not suppress the truth”

No we don’t. You are assuming that by people not continually suppress the truth when they come to Christ in faith that somehow means that they do not suppress the truth revealed to them via natural revelation, which would contradict what Paul says here. All of the Gentiles given natural revelation suppress it and reject it. They need the real Gospel through which they will be quickened by the Spirit in my view. So every Gentile given natural revelation rejects it. God must then come and bring them to faith in the Gospel via special revelation, the preacher bringing news of good tidings. So the issue is that you are assuming that because some of Group A does not continue to suppress once the Gospel/special revelation is delivered that means that some of Group A does not suppress the natural revelation given to them.

“Well, that’s an assumption you have, but I’m not sure we need to go down that road.”

Well, it’s an assumption based on what Paul tells us the gospel is. So the author does know what Gospel about which he is arguing.

Gospel of course is used in different ways, but most of the examples you gave me were from an informed view of what the gospel was, since they are at the end of the Gospels or a part of the author’s, who now understands what the Gospel is, understanding of it. BTW, the gospel of God preached in Mk 1:14 is informed by v. 15: it’s about the kingdom of God coming.

“I don’t see the problem. The parable of the ungrateful son, who takes his inheritance early indicates that God gives us the freedom to go, but he wants us to come back on our own accord. I can’t see any other conclusion one could make from this parable.”

So it’s freedom to be completely convinced by the devil and the world to reject God, but not freedom if God were to convince you with his persuasive ability? How is it not freedom if God can convince you to believe without infringing upon your free will in any different manner than the world does? And if the world does infringe on your free will, and God lets you be apart of that world, how is God allowing you have free will?