John for JESUS wrote:
No, it would not be true if what you said was true. Then there would be a problem of God contradicting Himself in 2 Tim 3:2-4. Thank God what you said isn't true though. The Bible doesn't say that the carnal person cannot believe in God.

I asked a simple question-
That for arg sake we put aside our positions and consider, IF IF the condition of man was given as described, would 2Tim be a valid statement? In other words would sense of the sentence allow for such a condition?

But you knew if you answered honestly, you'd be sunk.
So you came back with 'but the bible says'. You're safe where we pit INTERPRETATIONS.

John for JESUS wrote:
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 2Tim3:2-4
The word "rather than" means those people are making a choice contrary to loving God...which means they have the ability to do so.
Romans 8:7 says people do not completely obey the law of God, but faith is not of the law.

For 2Tim, supposing we set aside our 2 positions and just for a moment consider

IF IF IF It was that,
man is spiritually dead and a slave to sin and chooses the pleasures of sin rather than to love God. In fact the carnal man will not choose God, nor can he, for he is under the dominion and control of his sinful nature.

If this was true, would 2Tim be valid under this condition?
For now, I am not asking if 2Tim is saying wat you're saying but if 2Tim is valid to stand as a statement for this.

John for JESUS wrote:
I've checked many versions and they all say "than". What version of the Bible are you using? The CV?! Or did you not bother to look it up before you accused me? Lol

John for JESUS wrote:
For men will be ..., lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, (II Timothy 3:2-4 NKJV)
Doesn't that imply they love those sins rather than loving God? They choose those things over loving God which they could also do? Otherwise, why say "rather than"?

You spun ''they choose ... Which they could do'

Then you're asking why the verse is saying what you pretend you had said.

Well J4
Trying to ease down another rabbit hole because the 'WORLD' has caught up to you?

You've been wreaking havoc with people's understanding of scripture with your warped Dan Brown wanna be aproach.

Remember 'one must literally mean one' ? 'One baptism' - You wouldn't have water baptism because you've already got baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Does world mean the world literally? You don't believe that God died for all the world including birds? How Calvinistic of you already!
In Rom4:13 Abraham is promised the world as an inheritance, is it the unsaved also that he's inheriting?

'World' must mean 'world' as 'one must mean 'one' remember.

All your posts are a hit & run and an absolute perversion.
ALL and I mean ALL your posts first does a remake of scripture before apply your warped spin to it.
Now watch j4 in action

Michael Hranek wrote:
CV
Tota Scriptura (all of Scripture)
When we speak of prayer we ought not divorce it from the full context of the Bible
How many days did Daniel pray?
Was there spiritual warfare going on?
How about Elijah? How long was the time of drought and after the fire fell did he pray one time and give up before the rain fell?

Michael Hranek wrote:
a whole crock of theologial nonsense as a self-righteous excuse for their lack of love for the lost, let alone anykind of genuine labor to witness the immeasurable worth of Christ.

Now this question has already been asked.
Considering your understanding of sovereignty and free will, just what is your 'persistent prayer' to God be for someone who does not believe?
You HAVE to pray that God override that persons will, or you have a useless prayer just to sound off to a helpless God so you both can shake your head and go tsk tsk.

Skylight wrote:
Question: do you feel it is vital to preach the gospel to every living creature or just do nothing because it's God who does the "electing"?

If you had understood what Calvinism was, you'd know that that has nothing to do with Calvinism.

So how is that you all come up with the same misunderstanding coincidentally?

You walk like one and you quack like one, and true to character, you even deny your Armenian heritage.

Skylight wrote:
Thank goodness I don't beleive in neither heresies of Arminianism and Calvinism.

Oh, except for that nasty cigar smoking false teacher Spurgeon...
Oh and Calvin..
Oh and those murderous lying puffed up Calves.....

Wow
damning indictment.
If it was homosexuals, we'd say it was a judgement from God

when it comes to the issue of divorce, stay clear of 'conservative christians', they're clueless.

John Beechy wrote:
Calvinism is a papist invention.

John
Arminism is the heart of Romanism.
And Armin theology NECESSITATES a universal atonement, ergo NEGATES sovreignty.

Michael Hranek wrote:
because if the atonement was limited
how could those who reject Christ
be held guilty

Under Arminianism, salvation is reliant on the action of man therefore all men must be extended the same grace. If God limits, then man is absolved of guilt.

Michael Hranek wrote:
if the atonement was limited
how could those who reject Christ
be held guilty (inexcusable) for doing so

So how could someone be guilty of rejecting Christ if it wasn't offered for them to believe?

Arminians problem verse is Rom5:12- imputed sin
' for that all have sinned'.
Christ is God. Man starts off having rejected God & is already guilty and dead in sin. MAN IS ALREADY GUILTY!!
LA is God exercising his sovereignty in extending grace to whom He will

Grace owed to everyone is NOT GRACE but what is DUE.

Michael Hranek wrote:
if atonement was limited
how could those who reject Christ
be held guilty (inexcusable) for doing so

Against Popery wrote:
"you really are an emissary of Satan"!
And all of Gods children say AMEN!!!

You tried to use big name giants of the faith and use selective quotes to make tbe charges agaist the anabaptis look credible.

Well lets go with your premise, that the giantts of the faith adds to credibility. But lets not be sly and shift the charges against RC onto someone else

Mike wrote:
2)Since a man can do no good thing without God, he is but guilty of not being given the gift of faith. Isn't that why you say he is "passed by"?

the bible says man is guilty of sin of rebellion against God. we all HAD free will in Adam. And we all rebelled in Adam. We all sinned in Adam and are guilty.

Michael Hranek wrote:
Mike NY
A bit more consideration on motivation here.
If an individual (Calvinist/Reformed/TULIP) holds:
"We don't know who the elect are" in their witness
it appears they are hindered/sabotaged in how much labor/effort they will put out to make Christ known so that the lost might hear of Him and be saved

As far as Michael's comment, I have never seen that in practice but always brought up as a debating tactic. This is same silly point brought up against Paul regarding grace - that it was a license to sin. Did Spurgeons Calvinism hinder his witnessing? Well then lets stop this nonsense. You can't hinder the truth of the doctrine by nonsensicle points.

I use a phone whic is very dificult to carry a discussion. But i can point you to James White from AOM' material on the subject. lets have a serious evaluation of scripture Michael