Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Free will, or is it?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 111 of 163 (455846)
02-14-2008 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ICANT
02-13-2008 10:04 PM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
iano writes:
The Bible also seems to preclude the idea of the lost having a free will in the first place. We are described as being enslaved, dead, blind.
ICANT writes:
enslaved, yes but enslaved to what? Satan because your ancestor sold you into slavery. John 8:34-36
dead, yes but how? Dead in trespasses and sins separated from God. Eph. 2:1
blind, yes but blind to what? Blind to the truth. Matt. 23:24-26
Intrinsic to the idea of free is the notion that the will is equipped to chose in various directions. A free will unequipped to chose is like a car which is said to be free to drive - but which lacks a battery, whose tyres are flat and whose petrol tank is empty. The scripture you provide are but three of many examples which illustrate a free will stripped of essential componants.
-
The free will you suggest exists is supposed to be able to freely chose whilst being enslaved to the will of satan. The whole world lies under the sway and control and influence and power of the wicked one.
This free will is also described as being enslaved to sin. Enslavement is a very strong word and can be likened that which happens when someone becomes addicted to something. To talk of junkies having free will is to seriously undermine common notions of what free will involves.
A request is made of free will that it chose (freely) for God when scripture says it is separated from God, distant from God, at emnity with God, dead to God. One doesn't freely chose to go over to the side of one deemed an enemy. Not without very good reason.
I cannot think of a more stark way of illustrating the condition of fallen mans will then through the use of the word "blind". Yet you are insisting that the will which is blind to truth should freely chose for truth?
Bible excludes any and all notions of a person contributing in any way, shape or form to their salvation.
I need a scripture for that. I know you can not obtain salvation by physical works. Eph. 2:8-10.
You can't obtain it through thought-works either. Let's face it, if you can sin in thought (eg: lust) as well as deed then thought can be considered as much a work as a deed is. However, the central way in which mans contribution is excluded is by continuing on as above.
Below we have the mind described as death. Not just fond of looking in that direction. Not just inclined in that way. But death itself.
Rom 8:6 “For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace
Next up we have the mind controlled by the sinful nature - a nature being the seat of will. "Controlled by" is the same thing as "enslaved by". There can be no talk of free willed contribution when sin is in the driving seat.
It is interesting to note that the sinful mind cannot submit to God's laws (because Sin is antagonised into action by God's laws. Which will take a man in only one direction ....into sin)
Yet God commands men everywhere to repent. Repenting being turning away from sin. Something a mans nature can only do the opposition of.
Rom 8:7 “the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God
I'm at a loss as to how the poor creature below could be expected to respond free-willing to the things of God: the gospel, the truth, the power, the majesty. When all he see's is foolishness.
1 Cor 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-
-
-
-
-
Regarding asking for pardons.
Romans 10:13 (KJV) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Here we have asking God for that free pardon.
I don't think that's what it says. I call upon (rely upon, point towards, depend upon, summon forth) the name of the Lord for my salvation and nothing else. Scripture tells me that because I do so I will be saved. But the reason I call upon the name of the Lord in this way is because I am born again. Because my eyes have been opened I see that it is Christ who I need to place my trust in.
And so I do.
Calling on the name of the Lord is a consequence of having been saved. Not a cause of being saved.
The God I know is neither
Since this would probably be off topic why not e-mail me and tell me about this God of yours I would like to hear of Him/Her/It.
The issue in question is on topic. It had to do with how a person believes anything. The normal way in which a person believes in things is a result of their responsing to a reason/evidence supporting a belief. People don't believe in a vaccuum
In the case of God - the most important belief issue of all - the standard of reason/evidence would have to be of the very highest calibre in order that a persons belief be genuine and solid.
If you're asking folk to take a blind leap of belief (in the face of insufficient evidence for that belief) then it is reasonable to suppose a flurry of questions (as to why your "god" and not a myriad of equally unevidenced gods?) to follow.
There is no rational answer to that question - I suggest.
I'm asking what is reasonable and rational about a God who (you are arguing) requests folk to believe in something so stupendous as his existance and provision for salvation, when the evidence is (from their perspective) paltry at best. This especially in the light of that self-same God going to the trouble of describing these self-same folk in the ways covered above.
Ways which indicate they have anything but free will.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ICANT, posted 02-13-2008 10:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 10:51 AM iano has replied
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2008 11:40 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 113 of 163 (455881)
02-14-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
02-14-2008 10:51 AM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
ICANT writes:
Did you exercise your free will and make a choice to be born again or did you get that some other way?
Like I say, I had no free will to exercise.
Rather God worked to convince me of my need for him - countering my sinful natures tendency to work only in the direction of rejecting this effort of Gods.
Finally cornered by compelling evidence for my need of God, I believed the argument that God had brought about (due to it being compelling). Like Abraham, I believed God and God credited that belief as righteousness
No free will required.
Paul is writing about the children of Israel having exercised their free will and chosen to make their own rules instead of submitting to Gods rules.
Paul hasn't said a thing about exercising free will. That the Israelites are producing the goods that sinful natures produce only underlines sinful nature at work. Worshipping false gods is what sinful natures do. Trying to achieve own righteousness is what sinful natures do.
A cat's nature is to catch mice. If a cat dumps a mouse on the mat you don't say it's acted freewillingly. You say it's acted according to it's nature. Sin is the product of a sinful nature. Not of a free willed one. A free willed nature could produce some righteousness of its own
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Paul makes my earlier point. He argues from rationality. You call on the name of the Lord after you have believed in him. And before you believe in him you must somehow be convinced he exists and that you need him. Evidence is required the whole way down the line.
You need to begin dealing with the irrationality of requesting that people believe something for which they have not the evidence.
He then states several things a person does in exercising his free will.
Whether lost people have free will at all is the question. Not that they are assumed to have it and....
That is what I do. I tell people about Jesus.
And so do I. As I understand it, it is the gospel that saves a person not my or your doctrine. Insofar as our message contains elements of the gospel then God can use it. Insofar that it doesn't God will dispense with it.
iano I feel for people who have been raised without the knowledge of God imparted to them by their parents. There is nothing I can do about that I wish I could. I can only tell them what God says in His Word. If they choose to accept the Word fine. If they choose not to accept the Word I can do nothing about that. God will do nothing to make them believe.
I wouldn't worry too much about people who have never heard nor ever will hear of the gospel. Either it was God's intention that they never would. Or God has other ways of saving a person through Christ. I think of all the people who lived before Christ yet who were saved without ever having heard of Christ
We aren't really at loggerheads as much as you might think. I do think God sets up a choice of sorts for the lost. And that salvation is open to everyone who ever lived. It just doesn't require free will to enable that - for the reasons that free will is a) contra-indicated in scripture and b) functionally irrational
Sometimes I want to exercise my free will after 45 years of telling people about Jesus who will not listen and just go fishing.
You want to stop fishing and just go fishing. No wonder you're 45 years at it! If I don't see you in the meantime be sure to look me up in the new heavens and earth
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 02-14-2008 10:51 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by tesla, posted 02-14-2008 12:01 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 115 of 163 (456034)
02-15-2008 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by tesla
02-14-2008 12:01 PM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
It is a good description of my free will. But it doesn't say much about free will as it pertains to the lost. Who I contend have not a free will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by tesla, posted 02-14-2008 12:01 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by tesla, posted 02-15-2008 8:12 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 120 of 163 (456442)
02-18-2008 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by tesla
02-15-2008 8:12 AM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
if you choose to not decide, you still have made a choice.
Indeed. Choosing to make no decision is choosing to remain travelling on the current heading. Or at a halt - if that is your current "heading".
However, the issue of decision need not arise in order that you remain travelling a particular heading (which includes remaining at a stopped position). Doing absolutely nothing at all, that is, not choosing in any way, will achieve the same result.
In other words: objects travelling in a straight line will continue doing so unless acted upon by someone or others choice. No choice is required in order for the object to continue travelling in a straight line

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by tesla, posted 02-15-2008 8:12 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 8:30 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 121 of 163 (456443)
02-18-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by rstrats
02-16-2008 10:09 PM


rstrats writes:
Several of you here are saying or at least implying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things. If so, perhaps one of you can help me. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that - for example to effect a belief that it is possible for me to become a more compassionate person. Since you seem to be saying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, “OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ”x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ”x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ”x’ exists or is true?
This is the thing that has been confusing me too - although you phrase it in a new way. A notion has been propagated which says that you must (somehow) choose-for-God before you have the kind of evidence available which would allow you to believe in the normal fashion of believing thing.
It seems to me to be a kind of pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps kind of belief. Clearly there is some element, some nuance, that the notion lacks. I hope your question illicits some answers on the subject

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by rstrats, posted 02-16-2008 10:09 PM rstrats has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 122 of 163 (456454)
02-18-2008 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Blue Jay
02-16-2008 11:40 PM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
bluejay writes:
From my interpretation, if works are required to make your faith perfect, and if works can justify you, you can, through your works, contribute in some "way, shape or form" to your own salvation. If the Book of Mormon were permissible as scriptural proof, I would provide even clearer references, but this one suffices.
You're probably familiar enough with the arguments against this view that my counter-note will suffice as a response.
Working out our own salvation (with fear and trembling) does indeed perfect our (Christians) faith. But it's a working outwards of something that God has sown in - namely our having been born into God's family, where we (begin to) view things as God views them. 'Good work' follows as a consequence of having being saved -rather than contributing to that aspect of salvation we already possess: having passed from death to life.
James point is a true one. A faith that does not produce good works is not a (God-sown) faith. It's a religious faith perhaps. And the good works arising out of that religious faith might look the same as the works produced by a God-sown faith. But they are imitation and false. Filthy rags righteousness.
It is God who works (in the saved person) to will and to act according to his good pleasure. Other works need not apply
I'm not sure my views here will be appreciated much, because I am an evolutionist and a Mormon, but I will provide them anyway.
I'm not sure why a mormons view shouldn't be appreciated. Dealing with a theistic evolutionist is quite a different thing to dealing with a agnostic or atheistic evolutionist. The latter, in supposing their brain to be the product of purely deterministic/accidental processes can only go in circles whilst figuring out how to objectively trust anything that organ tells them
My religion does not believe in a manipulative God: we believe that, by and large, God awaits our choice to request His aid before rendering it.
You seem to be implying that lack of free choice (as traditionally understood: me faced with a left turn or right turn and being freely able to chose to go in either direction) renders God a manipulative God. In order to conclude that however, you would have to pose all other possible systems and analyse them for manipulativeness.
Can I suggest your conclusion undemonstrable - even to yourself?
However, He is seen as supporting us in times when we are attempting to do His will, but are falling short (which is, believe it or not, quite common).
Why would the general populace attempt to do the will of a God they didn't believe in? Especially if the will of God happened to conflict with their own desires.
Also, giving our free will ("agency" is the term we like) to God (by choosing to serve Him) is the only true gift that we can give Him, because it is the only gift that He can't take away from us on His own.
I would agree that free agency is required in order to gift to God in any meaningful (to God) way. I just disagree that man-as-born has free will.
rstrats question above is one for you perhaps. How is a person meant to (freely) believe in God without pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
From my interpretation, if works are required to make your faith perfect, and if works can justify you, you can, through your works, contribute in some "way, shape or form" to your own salvation.
Thus Mormonism shares a core principle of all of the following: Islam, Hinduism, Jehovahs Witness, Roman Catholicism, Buddhism, Christadelphianism, Wicca, etc., etc.,...
That is: your salvation (or whatever the carrot happens to be) depends on your working for it.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Blue Jay, posted 02-16-2008 11:40 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Blue Jay, posted 02-18-2008 2:37 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 126 of 163 (456476)
02-18-2008 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by tesla
02-18-2008 8:30 AM


Jerusalem, Jerusalem
tesla writes:
an object on one path that is subject to the one path because of its condition, takes the path it can only take. you on the other hand, have a choice.
Just to point out that we are speaking about a lost person and not me. It would very much appear to be the case that the saved have free will restored.
A lost person “on the other hand” has a will. The Bible describes this will as sin-enslaved. It’s a will which, when exercised, only works to suppress God’s truth - permitting the person to engage in the sin they are addicted to. But it’s a will for all that. So let’s call the expression of a persons will “an interior force”. We now have:
“ a person in motion along the path to the point of salvation will continue on that path - unless acted upon by an interior force”
I agree that it is a condition and not an act of will that maintains a person on this path. Gods desire than none perish is the condition that does that for fallen men. Nor is there any exercise of the will required to maintain a person on the path to the point of salvation. God’s effort does that for them - it is he who calls and draws all towards salvation.
The only thing the person can “choose” for is to get off that path. Their will exercised so as to counter, and finally negate, God’s will excercised in the attempt to save them.
quote:
Luke 13:34 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you kill the prophets and stone to death those sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you were not willing!
Not willing = willed it not. Jesus will gather all except those who will it not.
No free will on our part is required.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 8:30 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 9:33 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 127 of 163 (456477)
02-18-2008 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by rstrats
02-18-2008 8:47 AM


Re: Free will. As in problems with
Hi rstrats
If you click on the PEEK button down the bottom right corner of this post you can see what codes to use to get
this
that writes:
these
quote:
and those

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by rstrats, posted 02-18-2008 8:47 AM rstrats has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 131 of 163 (456482)
02-18-2008 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by tesla
02-18-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
tesla writes:
there are two paths, and those dead in sin are only dead by their choice,
I was under the impression that folk were born dead in their sins and transgressions. Which is why they need to be born again.
At what point do you suggest they died by choice?
The rest of your post is jumbled and doesn't really address the points made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 9:33 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:00 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 135 of 163 (456488)
02-18-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by tesla
02-18-2008 10:00 AM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
iano writes:
I was under the impression that folk were born dead in their sins and transgressions. Which is why they need to be born again. At what point do you suggest they "died by choice"?
tesla writes:
the death is on them because they live in the sin of the earthly fathers, and the knowledge of good and evil. with the knowledge, they have the choice to accept the evil or the good.
we are born into the day after Christ has come, and not before. the medicine is available to us. eat and drink the medicine and you will be saved, but do not eat and drink, and you will die.
to be born of water is to be a man, to be born of the spirit is to become the bride of God.
The query was, at what point did they die by choice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:00 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:24 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 138 of 163 (456492)
02-18-2008 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by tesla
02-18-2008 10:24 AM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
tesla writes:
in the garden, when the father of man disobeyed God. that was the first cause. individually; ask God, i do not have the answer.
How do you suppose death by individual choice if you don't know the answer as it pertains to the individual

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:24 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:58 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 141 of 163 (456498)
02-18-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by tesla
02-18-2008 10:58 AM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
tesla writes:
there are two paths, and those dead in sin are only dead by their choice,
I asked when this choice was made. You seem to be saying that they (eg: people living today) made a choice way back in the garden - before they even existed.
Or that Adams choice is their choice too - even though they weren't there to chose themselves.
Fair enough if you believe that is the case. But it doesn't make any rational sense. The idea of me choosing requires me to be around to chose in the first instance

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 10:58 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 11:15 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 143 of 163 (456511)
02-18-2008 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by tesla
02-18-2008 11:15 AM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
tesla writes:
i see.
I don't think you do, to be honest. You seem to have an irrational belief that people freely chose death-in-their-sins. I say irrational because they supposedly do so at some indeterminate point in time prior to their even being born.
the people today have evidence before them that God IS. under examination, they will make their choice.
They also have a clatter of evidence that other gods are. And that no gods are.
Described as blind, enslaved-to-sin, dead-to-God, God-hating enemies one could only conclude the deck is stacked against their choosing correctly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 11:15 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 1:16 PM iano has replied
 Message 148 by Blue Jay, posted 02-18-2008 3:14 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 145 of 163 (456514)
02-18-2008 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by tesla
02-18-2008 1:16 PM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
mankind caused the problem in the first sin. all mankind are dead because of it.
I'll leave this particular irrational merry-go-round be. I'm getting too dizzy.
God gave us medicine, because he loved us, and did not wish for us to die. this means, although dead, you can now yet live, because of the medicine that is taken individually.
I agree. It would be more accurate to say that God made this "medicine" available. "God gave" implies that we have taken it.
They also have a clatter of evidence that other gods are. And that no gods are.
so what is the truth? what i believe may not be what you choose to believe. but the truth is the truth.
The truth is that you're not particularily keen on addressing points made but prefer to touch base only very sporadically.
The point made was that biblically (at least), the dice is heavily loaded against a choice for God being made. Such a thing renders the notion of free-willed choice a bit of a nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 1:16 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by tesla, posted 02-18-2008 2:21 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 149 of 163 (456521)
02-18-2008 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Blue Jay
02-18-2008 3:14 PM


Re: Jerusalem, Jerusalem
bluejay writes:
That took a lot of will power.
You mean freewill power...
I think the point he's trying to make is that, we're all dead-in-our-sins because of the Fall of Adam...it seems to be something you (iano) agree with).
I do...in the sense of being born a sinner and progressing to do what sinners do. Sin
He further asserts that we have the option of choosing to be saved, by belief in Christ (This is the part I agree with, and you seem to agree, too).
I don't agree at all. Sinless Adam had a free will. Faced with two (arguably) equally weighted options his will decided upon disobedience. In so doing he lost free will and became a dead man walking. Dead men don't have such a thing as free will. In so far as a dead man expresses his will he can only will death and sin.
Biblically, it's called enslavement to sin.
Because believing is an option, not believing is also an option. Therefore, if you don't believe (and are therefore dead-in-your-sins), it is because you didn't choose to.
Biblically the language used to describe the lost is such as to render notions of freewill fantastical at best. If tesla could pick some adjectives applied to the lost state, that illustrated notions of free will then I might reconsider. As it is, the language used offers no hope of man as anything other than helpless.
Most of the people I met there were obviously Buddists/Taoists/Confucianists who hadn't really been presented with the choice of following Christ (because Christianity is very small in Taiwan, limiting its exposure). I would argue that these people did not choose to be in their state of Christ-lessness, so unbelief is not necessarily tied to choice.
Which is the kind of issue that tesla ignores. He says the evidence is there when it patently is not.
No-choice-for-style Christianity circumvents such problems by placing the onus on God to save - not on the person. God can reach a confucianist as easily as he can anyone else. There is no requirement that the confucianist hears the gospel of Christ. Were it so that the gospel must be heard - then Abraham couldn't have been saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Blue Jay, posted 02-18-2008 3:14 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024