Search results

Repeating yourself doesn't make what you said any less incorrect.

So you'll take what a church says over what scripture says, even though scripture is plain? That's real smart. Prove it. You won't. Which is why I said "recommend," not "requirement." Nope. Jesus preached the gospel of the Kingdom, and built the church of Israel with Him being the...

Your understanding is wrong. Lean not on your own understanding. For making it possible for men to respond to the gospel, yes. That's an entirely different matter than a person believing as a response to the gospel. There's two pies here. You're claiming they're the same pie. God is...

No. The decision to believe is a RESPONSE to God giving His Son. GOD is the first mover, not man.

How about it, B57? Is it possible for God to draw someone who is not saved?

28, not 31. 31 is describing the Tree, not Satan. The passage is talking about both. God is condemning the King of Tyre (a man), by describing Lucifer (the devil). Quite the condemnation! Which I don't disagree with, at least not outright, however, I would like to point out that Satan was...

Sadly, it's not even funny anymore...

Why not just read what Scripture says: https://opentheism.org/verses

Or, you know, just read the Bible... Also recommended: https://store.kgov.com/the-plot/ An overview of the Bible is the key to its details.

You didn't answer my question, which is a yes or no question. You gave a reply, but you didn't answer my question. Please answer my question: Is it possible for God to draw someone who is not saved?

Can God draw someone who is not saved?

Can God draw people who are not saved?

Actually, the verse doesn't actually say "cast down." It says "cast to the earth." Yes, many of the English translations have "down" there, because when you cast something, it tends to go downward at some point, but the problem is that it brings the idea that He was cast from higher up, rather...

Once again, you avoided my question. You said: Do you not have an answer for it?

When we're discussing wills, whether someone follows through with their will is largely irrelevant. Which means that God did not infallibly know the future. I recommend reading this article on the overall subject. It presents the logical reasoning for why Peter could not have had a choice if...

That's talking about not swearing. Wrong topic.

But He infallibly knew that He was going to choose Chocolate. Was He wrong?

Where have I misrepresented you? Do you or do you not defend the idea that God must know the future based on what He said to Peter Not what's being discussed. We're talking about whether people have wills or not, not whether their will is being usurped. Do try to keep up, Arty. Supra...

Let me ask this another way: If God had some ice cream in front of him, and God knew that He would choose chocolate instead of the vanilla, could God change His mind and choose vanilla instead?

Neither do you. Straw man. Neither of us believe God is a magician. Miracles aren't magic. Knowing the future is mutually exclusive to freedom.