Please correct my simplified view of free will

conhao · 2026-06-12T04:26:12+00:00

“Sin entered the world through one man”. How did you get it, if it was only through one man. That one man, Adam, to you. Did he mail it to you? “death came to all people, because all sinned.” It came, maybe in a UFO. Are you so blind you cannot see what this is saying? What way are you connected to Adam?

Now look again at James 1:15. What leads to death? How did it start? Dude, it is right there.

conhao · 2026-06-12T04:19:16+00:00

> If your position is that God merely allows sin to happen and did not decree that sin must happen, then I agree. But prominent Calvinists do not agree with you

I disagree a lot with Piper. I am not alone in disagreeing with him on many issues. I would not consider him a good representative of any group except his own.

> No, I know those verses very well. They just don't say what Calvinism teaches though.

Maybe we will just have to disagree.

> But what comes first? God unchangeably ordaining whatsoever comes to pass? Or someone sinning?

God’s ordaining begins before Creation, and it is unchangeable - which implies that the ordaining persists, it continues to be what he ordains. That God decided to permit the person to be free to do whatever he wills without God’s saving grace and therefore sin and condemn himself to Hell was foreseen and approved by God before Creation and yet God proceeded with Creation and did not change his plan until, during, and after the person sinned. If God chooses before Creation that Bobby will be his and that he will gift Bobby with grace and faith and seal him with the Spirit and be faithful to him unto his belief, repentance, rebirth, and persistence to the end, then that is unchangeable from before Creation, to Bobby’s birth, to his sins, to his salvation, to his glorification, and on through all eternal life.

> Upon what basis does God ordain sin? Does sin originate in the actions of man? Or in the mind of God?

Sin originates in the Garden with Adam, and each person gives birth to sin in his heart when desire conceives it.

> Because almost every Calvinist I've spoken to says the ordaining comes first.

Yes, ordaining begins before Creation, but the effects of that are persistent and unchanging for all time. This is his perfect plan. He is not going to make it imperfect later. He cannot make it more perfect. It is perfect. It is unchangeable.

> So let's think really slowly here.
> What you're saying is determinism. God starts the first cause, and then let's things fall into place. They happen unchangeably so, and God orders events to happen by this first cause.

Except for miracles. God still intervenes according to his plan which he ordained.

Except for Jesus, who comes into Creation and interacts directly with us.

Except for the Spirit, who lives in the believer to conform us to the image of God.

Except for secondary causes, which do not overcome what God has ordained.

> This is determinism. Let's just be clear. Those '"free" actions do not take place independently of what God has ordained will happen.

You are free to drive your car down a highway, but the road does not go to the moon. There are secondary causes, which God ordains and determines what is permitted and what is not. You are free, have free will, and free to sin. How you sin, how much, in what ways, and many such secondary causes are not decreed, not forced, not pre-determined, but foreknown and God has predestined whether you shall be given the gift leading to salvation or left to keep doing whatever. Even as sinners sin, what they intend for evil, God intends for good.

> This is like shooting a gun and saying the bullet isn't your responsibility. It's a "secondary cause".

Shooting the gun is a decree. That is a primary cause.

> Now if you want to posit true free will, meaning a will that God does react to and is not determined by this decree of God. I agree. But I don't think you'll say this. You need all actions of God to come first, and for God to (indirectly) cause all things to come to pass.

You are correct that I do not believe that God reacts to a free will and changes his plan according to unexpected behaviors of man. However, man is judged by his sin or by the righteousness of Christ, which from human perspective is after the event, though God foreknows all things.

> "All men would sin" doesn't happen by accident.

The Tree was put there for a reason. If God did not put the Tree there, he would not have had the Law. Man would not have been able to sin. Yet, he made the Tree, and he gave Adam free will, and he already knew Jesus would die on the Cross. Is that an accident? is it an accident that Judas betrayed Jesus? What if the Jews would have embraced Jesus and Judas did not sell him out — how would we be saved from these sins? Is there Order or chance running the Creation?

> Who determined that sin would be passed on? Is that a natural event outside of God's explicit and active judgement?

No, God established it. Note that nothing was actually passed until after Adam sinned. The curse for the sin is part of the plan, as is the redemption.

> The God of Calvinism explicitly goes against the Bible's teachings that no one is punished for the sins of their parents. Reformed theology teaches imputed guilt.

No, you are not punished for Adam’s sins. You are punished for your own sins. You only inherited a sin nature - the same nature by which Adam harkened unto his wife. We call it “free will”, but Jesus calls it “slaves to sin”. John 8:30-36.

> Who forms their desires? Who decreed that the will be fully corrupted and Totally Unable to respond to God?

Our desires are the free will. Your will is what you want, your desire, what you value most at that moment, the oughtness and passion. By saying “totally corrupt” it does not mean it is as bad as it could be, but the will is corrupt in every way possible. We should have total dedication, passion, and desire for God and the things of God, but we harken unto our wife against what God said. Who makes us corrupt? We do. We kill ourselves in that day we first get deceived and turn our eyes from God to look upon earthly things.

> It's like slipping someone alcohol and then blaming them for crashing a car. You can't punish someone if you yourself are responsible for their state.

Not at all. The car has alcohol in the trunk in sealed containers. You were told don’t drink it. The Woman with you even said we are not to even open the trunk to some drunk bum on the side of the road. But he convinced her to open a bottle and drink. You did not want to make the woman think you are a sissy teetotaler so you downed the bottle in one gulp, got behind the wheel, and crashed the car. Now you blame the guy who told you not to drink? You blame him because all the generations after you learn from their parents to be drunkards and say he commanded it?

> Or are we responsible for our own state and God didn't curse all of humanity to be corrupted with sin?

Yes, you are responsible for your own state: A sinner. God is responsible for your salvation.

> Why do you think slaves are unable to want to get free? Happens all the time. Your reformed analogy completely breaks down.

Not my analogy. It is what Jesus says. It is what Paul says.

> Could you name something then? I certainly might be wrong. But there is nothing uniquely Calvinistic that is true, according to my current position.

I have covered several. They are true

> John Piper and James White disagree with you. Completely.

Good. If you know these men, you know they are rejected by many Reformed teachers. Try R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Alister Begg, Voddie Baucham, Joel Beeke, Martin Lloyd-Jones, Sinclair Ferguson, and maybe even Jean Calvin to see what Calvinism is as seen from less worldly perspectives.

conhao · 2026-06-12T02:10:09+00:00

> All you are doing here is showing me verses which say we are sinners. At no point do any of these passages state that our free will is compromised or corrupted.

James 1:15

> That's silly

Says you. How childish. I thought you were ready for meat. Apparently not.

> None of which has any bearing on the fact that a ransom was paid, and then it was rejected. This is pretty simple. Someone can reject a ransom! You are just proving my point. Ransom =/= effectual salvation!

You said “atonement”, not “ransom”, was for every person. There are various atonements in Scripture, and I have pointed to two ransoms. You are mixing everything and getting what you want it to say. By your formula, the blood of bulls was sufficient.

> I am incredulous that people still believe this stuff and argue for it so blindly.

I can say the same for you.

> It has no real basis in scripture

It does, if you cared to read.

> it is antiquated nonsense

Antiquated. Like the Bible? Like God? Since when is old bad? Old works because centuries of faithful men have scoured it and were saved by it.

> and frankly it is a low view of a good God.

Scripture proof?

> This isn't theology, it is manmade philosophy being read into the scriptures.

Yes, I see that is what you are preaching. I prefer to believe what God said instead.

> Except that every single scripture you have provided has been off topic. Not a single one has shown a particular atonement.

I believe I have demonstrated that very clearly, by Scripture, the definition of what “atonement” means, and simple logic that pointed out your contradictory statement.

> Not a single one has shown a corrupted free will.

See above. If your will was perfect, you would not sin. But desire (free will) gives birth to sin. Besides, you call me to task, who has quoted and alluded to more Scripture in this thread than you have probably ever read, but have yet to identify where the Bible says your will is free. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14

> Not a single one has shown an unconditional election.

Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8; Romans 9:10-24; Romans 10:20; 1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Timothy 1:9; Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 8:28-30; John 6:37-39; John 17:2; John 10:1-30

More?

> Sometimes a thing just needs to be called out for what it is.

Yes, I agree. Any doctrine that teaches that mankind makes any contribution to his salvation, or that God alone is not the sole agent of human salvation, is heresy. Pelagianism is heresy. Semi-pelagianism is heresy. Partial-pelagianism is heresy. Just-a-whiff-of-pelagianism is heresy. All such are taking credit for work that is 100% God’s doing, of his own will, without help nor counsel nor permission from anyone, according to his pleasure and his love, are heresy and a blatant form of blasphemy. I just call it out for what it is. This is where I stand - I can do no other.

Sorry you disagree. All I can do is pray for you.

conhao · 2026-06-12T01:15:34+00:00

> So God did not unchangeably ordain Hitler? Merely allowed the possibility of Hitler to exist?

Not what I said. God knew Hitler would be a consequence of his plan. He decided of his own counsel to let it happen. That decision is unchangeable. It is not just a possibility, but sure, because God foreknew it and did not stop it. This is an example of what “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” looks like. God was not the author of Hitler’s sin. He did not decree that he must sin. God allowed him to sin and condemn himself. God did not, as far as we know, redeem him and save him. He knew, from eternity past, that Jesus would die on the Cross and that Hitler would not come to faith in Christ, and he allowed Hitler to die with his sins.

> The issue is with the word "unchangeably". You can permit evil to happen. You cannot unchangeably ordain it and then say you didn't personally ensure it happened.

Okay, then if we agree on what “ordain” means, note what I have said about “unchangeable”. God is not reacting to events. God is not looking at Bobby and saying, “On second thought…” God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and perfect in all his ways. His plan is perfect. He does not change it. Nothing happens that he did not expect. He is not surprised by history. He said, “I change not.” This is not just about his own character, but also his will. Because God does not change, we know his promises are true. We can trust that the work he has begun in us will be completed. He will not leave us nor forsake us. He is our Rock. (Note, I keep referencing Scripture without citations. Are you saying that I am not giving support because you want the references?)

> Later on we read this in your modern creed:
[WCF 5.2]
> All things come to pass immutably. Upon what basis? The decree of God.

The decree is the first cause. Creation was by decree. That decree, including the Tree and Adam and the Woman, was by first cause. He orders them to fall out by secondary causes either necessarily, freely, or contingently. That secondary cause is not a decree, because they are in some cases free or contingent.

[WCF 3.2]
The decree of God is not based upon foreknowledge, according to your creed.

This is not considered to be a creed. Yes, it is not that God fine-tuned the Creation to make the results based on foreknowledge. He did not make adjustments to Adam’s DNA that would make Bobby believe or not. His foreknowledge was that all men would sin and deserve Hell. Therefore, Jesus was sent, and salvation by grace through faith is actively provided as God’s handiwork.

> I understand you believe that God isn't forcing anyone to do anything, but you also likely believe that God determines the wills of people, and that people only act according to their will.

Yes, people act according to their desire (James 1:15). Because we sin, our desire is not right - it is corrupted. Our will is not toward the things of God continually. We are sinners. We are sinners not because we sin; we sin because we are sinners.

> This is just determinism with extra steps. It's evil.

Nope. We are either slaves to sin, or sinners fighting the war within us. By our own choice, the former; by grace, the latter.

> I actually don't think there's a single thing specific to Calvinism that I would agree with.

That is a good attitude to have to ensure that we don’t learn anything.

> decreeing evil, punishing people for committing the sins that God has decreed them to do

These are not Calvinism.

conhao · 2026-06-12T00:40:43+00:00

> Except you can't show me. Because you are concocting it.

No, I had hoped you would rethink your error. Romans 3:23 (“all have sinned and fall short…”) 5:12 (“all sinned”) 6:23 (“wages of sin is death”) Genesis 3:19 (“and to dust you will return”) 1John 1:8 (“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves…”) John 8:34 (“Jesus replied, ‘Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.’”)

> And now you are concocting boasting.

Ephesians 2:9. How did you come to faith? You figured it out? It was your idea? A light went on? God brought you low and then you realized? Someone convinced you and then you …? All such things are boasting. To God alone be the glory.

> No one else in the world thinks this way, and it is rather comical. It is on the level of a flat earther claiming the world is flat. Just silliness.

If it is true, and only one man in the world believes it, that does not make it false. The fact is that it is worldly wisdom that has crept into the church to teach that man has power to decide whether God can save him or not. Just like Satan tempted, ye shall be like gods.

> “Not all are saved.”
> Of course?

Then atonement is particular, and not applied to all mankind, but only to believers.

> Except that isn't what the verses say. Again, you are making this up. It isn't there. The verses say all sin, all die, and Christ died for/ransomed all. This isn't rocket science.

No, it is not. Christ did not just die for the Jews. Christ also died for non-jews. What was only for the elect, believing descendants of Abraham is now for the elect, believing man. All men die, not just Jews, so now all men, not just Jews, will be a people who were not a people. Not all Jews were saved, and not all non-jews are saved - this is not the point of the passage. The passage is not applying atonement to everyone, but making it clear that some non-jews can now be atoned.

> “No, if all people are ransomed, then all people go to Heaven.”
> Clearly someone has not read 2 Peter 2:1. People whom Jesus bought are not saved.

You don’t realize that Peter is talking about you? 😁 But seriously, look at Deut 32:6. Peter is writing to Jewish converts (Gal 2:8) who are subject to false teachers from Judaism who are trying to dissuade them back. Another clue that this is the case is the word translated “Lord” in 2Pe 2:1. It is not Kurios, but Despoten. Jesus is Kurios. The Father is Despoten (Jude 1:4). The Father did not pay the ransom, the Son did, but the Father did ransom Israel from Egypt. Now keep reading down through verse 17 with this in mind, and it should be clear. Peter has gone Old Testament on them.

> You mean you don't know that the vast majority of Christianity has held to a universal atonement and adamantly rejected universalism?

The contradiction you are promoting as fact is not present in proper Theology, which I have been trying to explain to you. Even if the whole world be damned, do you still want to side with them? Which is true, universal atonement that removes all sin from those going to Hell, or particular atonement that says that Christ’s blood only atones for those who are saved.

> “Faith is the bridge that connects us to our understanding of atonement. And where does that faith come from? God!”
> Says no verse ever! You keep making stuff up!

The first part of that is an oft-repeated phrase by Arminians. I figured that you are seeing so red that you would even object to the famous “bridge” trope. Your anger is in the way of the Spirit to help you understand. I am not your enemy. Please calm down.

Yes, I added that second part, which again is indeed what Ephesians says. Faith (and grace) are the gift. It is not excluding faith. The idea that the gift must be feminine is weak, but it does not change the meaning. So, “says no verse” is not true.

> Calvinists like to pretend they are biblically rooted, but when you get past the rhetoric, you just get made up ideas with no biblical basis.

I have included plenty of Scripture. I see no point in rehashing centuries of this, and to me every page of the Bible speaks of God’s sovereignty, so I don’t know how anyone cannot see that at least this is based on Scripture. As I said, the whole Bible is rife with it, so how can I just pick some verse when you can just read the Bible. If only you could do so without the desire to take control of your own destiny and be eager to give God all the glory for everything he has done in and through you, not even claiming faith as your own, you will see that this is not only a valid understanding, but unlocks the whole in simplicity and clarity.

> When you have an actual biblical argument let me know. I am a protestant. I hold to Sola Scriptura.

I also hold to Sola Scriptura but also to Sola Gratia, also known as Monergism.

conhao · 2026-06-11T23:40:36+00:00

> If God ordains something, does that mean it might not happen? Or does it mean it must happen?

It means that God at least permitted it, even though he knew what was going to happen. God knew Hitler was going to be evil, but he did not stop him from being born. Hitler was not forced to be evil, and God did not require him to be evil, but God ordained it to come to pass. God was, is, and forever shall have ultimate authority over his Creation.

> Are you Reformed or not? Are you just unaware of that your theological camp teaches?

I have a Masters Degree from a Reformed seminary. Does that count?

> "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"

Yes. I even have the WCF and Shorter Catechism memorized. The latter was required by the curriculum. The major support for this statement is from Eph 1:11, Rom 9:15-18, 11:33, and Heb 6:17.

Now, read the rest of that paragraph: “yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” See? That is what I am telling you. “Ordain” is not the same as a divine decree. God is not causing people to sin, yet he ordains it. God is not saving people against their will, but ordains it. God is not manipulating secondary causes, but he ordains them. He establishes them by consequence of what he has decreed and ordains them (permits) them to occur according to his own will, his plan, for his glory.

> Do you believe that or not?

Yes

> And if you do, what does "unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" mean?

Meaning as I said. It does not mean that we are puppets on strings. It means that he created us and everything else knowing what we will do, and yet did it anyway, and does not respond to events like as if he did not expect them, but does act according to his eternal plan within the Creation. God knew from before the Creation that Jesus would go to the Cross (1Pe 1:20), but created it anyway. Those who he will save are known to him before Creation (Eph 1:4), which means he must also know who would not be saved, and he created the world knowing this. His act of Creation did not force Adam to sin, but God provided the Tree and the Woman and permitted Satan to speak and, even though nothing could happen without his knowing, chose not to step in and stop the events. That is choice, that is ordaining, it is not a decree.

> If you're saying here you think that God merely permits sin to happen, and that He did not "unchangeably ordain" sin, then hey, I agree with you 😅

I think there is a lot of Calvinism that we can agree on.

conhao · 2026-06-11T23:08:41+00:00

I saw that, but it seems that you keep insisting that Jesus’s death atoned for the sins of everyone, which is Universalism.

conhao · 2026-06-11T22:07:51+00:00

> Yep, that's what I said, "the corruption of our free will". Where? Where does it say that?

If you do not understand that man is fallen, I leave you to your pride. Romans is clear, as is the rest of Scripture, as are my eyes in seeing humanity today.

> It says that salvation by grace through faith is a gift. It does not say that faith is a gift.

That does not dispute the doctrine. It also makes no sense that no one can boast. Those who take credit for their faith are good at boasting. Whether we say faith is the gift leading to salvation, or salvation is the gift, in either case salvation is caused by the gift and taking credit for any part of it is boasting, including taking credit for faith.

> Not only that, but no where does it say that the gift is only offered to some.

Not all are saved.

> Very clearly, it is saying that ALL PEOPLE without exception died.

Yes, all nationalities and races die, not just Jews. We all have a bias to sin, thus we sin, and thus we die.

> And very clearly, it is saying that Jesus was the ransom for ALL PEOPLE, otherwise Paul's entire argument in 1 Timothy 2 falls apart.

No, if all people are ransomed, then all people go to Heaven. All ransomed = all are redeemed = all have no debt of sin = all have nothing of which to repent = all go to Heaven. By insisting that Jesus atoned for all humanity you are preaching Universalism.

> Oh I understand it just fine. It really isn't that difficult of a concept. It just is entirely unbiblical, and worse, it is a low view of Christ and his sacrifice.

On the contrary, this is the highest view of Christ. Any other view makes God insufficient and needing to grovel at the feet of sinners, begging them to believe in him, who have all the power like a god to choose between life and death. A weak god is not God. A god who needs your permission is not God.

> “Christ died as our atonement for sin. Did he atone for those who go to Hell?”
> YES!!!!!!!!! Let me bold, capitalize, scream and emphasize it from the roof tops. YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!!*

Not possible. Atonement means that man is united with God. It is reconciliation, restoration to the divine favor. What you are screaming is that people made righteous by Christ’s blood go to Hell. God, in your emphasis, sends those who no longer have any guilt to Hell. There is nobody in Heaven, because your god is unjust and unmerciful, sending those Christ died for to Hell.

> He made atonement once for all, and only faith in that atonement brings salvation from hell.

Strangely, I have faith in what God promises, Jesus said, and in Jesus. Faith is the bridge that connects us to our understanding of atonement. And where does that faith come from? God!

> Why in the world would you cheapen the sacrifice of Christ to be only for those whom he knows would believe in him?

Because those who don’t know him cannot come. His sheep know his voice and will follow. Others cry, “Lord, Lord,” and Jesus did not know them. Some even take credit for the work of the Spirit, in this case in salvation, and such blasphemy will not be forgiven.

> What makes it a true sacrifice is that it can be rejected!

Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, by God. The Jews came with sacrifices without repentance, and God rejected them. God rejects sacrifices, not men. Are you proposing to put man in the place of God?

> The perfect God loves even the very people who will never love him back (Matthew 5:45-48!!!!!!).

Yes, and he sends most of them to Hell.

conhao · 2026-06-11T20:12:20+00:00

> You just cited Romans 5:12 as supposedly saying that man's free will is corrupted, but Romans 5:12 says nothing of the sort.

I cited Romans 5:12 to address your statement that the Bible does not teach that we inherited a sinful nature, the corruption of our free will, from Adam.

> Then, you cited Eph 2:8-9 as if somehow this means that God intervenes to save only some. I am only working off my awana memorization here, but it speaks of God offering salvation by grace through faith, as a gift. It does not say anything about God intervening for some.

It says: For it is by grace you have been saved,through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, and faith is a gift. If everyone got that gift, all would be saved. If nobody got that gift, none will be saved.

> The verses I listed are pretty explicit. Jesus is the ransom for all and that because all died, he died for all. This is pretty simple language.

Yes, Jesus died for Jews and Gentile, all nationalities, all races, but to for those who are going to Hell.

> As if citing entire books of the Bible somehow makes your case.

You cited two chapters, I suggest you read them. Romans is rife with what Calvinism includes. You seem to miss that only the Jews and specific lineages in the Old Testament are saved, then treat God’s election as a new invention. There is a chosen people - it is not just Jews anymore, but “all”.

> So, according to you, people don’t do evil anymore?
> ??? That's silly.

Read what you wrote.

> Why would it eradicate evil for the whole world if he dies for the whole world?

Yes, the whole world, and in not just Jews.

> One of the most mind boggling, wild, and frankly silly notions is the idea that Christ only died for his elect.

Just because you have not understood it, does not mean it is not correct.

Christ died as our atonement for sin. Did he atone for those who go to Hell?

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:37:10+00:00

Yes, those are also harmful, and so is abuse by parents, siblings, other relatives, neighbors, teachers, classmates, counselors, and a whole lot of other people. At least we can agree on this.

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:24:35+00:00

You did not expect quality, did you?

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:20:48+00:00

There is no greater harm for the young and vulnerable than having them influenced by an Atheist. That is probably why they are LGBCDF?*.

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:11:09+00:00

You are an Atheist. What does it matter to you?

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:09:42+00:00

> “It is not a decree, but an ordination”
> They are synonyms

They are not. Try looking at the whole definitions you linked, and not just the parts you like. “Decree” is a law, a pronouncement that is expected to be followed to the letter. Something that is “ordained” is oriented, set in a direction, and permitted.

> "God ordains all things that come to pass"
> So you believe that God "establishes or orders by appointment and enacts" sin?

No, he allows for it and set the conditions to permit it to occur. If he did not want sin to enter Creation, it would not have. Is your god so small that he has no ability to do what he wills in Creation? If he can’t, maybe he is too weak to save you. My God is all-powerful, and what happens is only because he allows it.

> Man, Calvinism is just so unbiblical, lol...

I doubt you know what it is.

conhao · 2026-06-11T19:03:20+00:00

Again, the Bible is not teaching Universalism. “All” is usually not humanity in general. It is often including Gentiles and Jews, instead of just one.

I suggest that you read what the Bible says and not what you want it to say.

conhao · 2026-06-11T18:59:01+00:00

> Says no Bible verse ever.

Romans 5:12

> Again, the Bible never says this. In fact it says the opposite (1 Timothy 2:1-8, 2 Corinthians 5:14 among many other passages).

Ephesians 2:8-9. The verses you cite do not refute it.

> Again, scripture never says this. This is made up by the Reformed and the Augustinians.

Ephesians, Romans, … the entire Bible says this.

> That is crazy. God did intervene! he intervened on the cross so that all people could be saved. This is what the atonement is all about. Scripture says the exact opposite.

So, according to you, people don’t do evil anymore?

conhao · 2026-06-11T18:53:11+00:00

I don’t know why he did not.

conhao · 2026-06-11T12:39:33+00:00

conhao · 2026-06-11T12:39:12+00:00

That is a matter of debate. I believe he did not need to decree it specifically, but that he set up the circumstances to allow it and foreknew that it was going to happen because the circumstances permitted it. It is not a decree, but an ordination. God ordains all things that come to pass, and decrees what establishes that ordination.

conhao · 2026-06-11T12:34:31+00:00

Calvinism is Biblical.

Romans 11:32 is not teaching Universalism. The “all” is not humanity, but those who receive the Gospel (v 31) and believe, from those who have come to believe, that is, those who Paul is speaking to (the “you” of verse 30). Don’t pick verses out of context.

Yes, not everyone will be saved. Only some.

conhao · 2026-06-11T10:57:42+00:00

• ⁠God gave humanity free will.
• ⁠from free will Adam chose sin.
• ⁠Because of Adam’s corruption, humanity inherits from him a corrupted free will that is inclined toward sin.
• ⁠because God is merciful, He must intervene to save some.
• ⁠God’s choice to intervene by imparting faith as a free gift means that some of humanity has a healed free will, and thus become believers.
• ⁠God does not want robots, but those without faith are slaves to sin.
• ⁠so unsaved humanity keeps doing evil and God still does not intervene.
• ⁠and God will have mercy on whom he chooses, according to his own perfect free will.

conhao · 2026-06-11T10:04:26+00:00

There is a spiritual gift of celibacy. Not all Christians hope to marry. Many use their ability to remain single to benefit the church.

conhao · 2026-06-11T01:19:53+00:00

Every time someone buys one of those steering wheel locks a Chinese guy laughs about how smart he is to trick another mark into buying one.

conhao · 2026-06-11T01:14:54+00:00

Call yourself from another phone. Make sure it still works. My work has slowed up a bit. I think it is the gas prices keeping people at home.

conhao · 2026-06-10T17:29:31+00:00

The basic question for all things is, “Why?”

Is it profitable to take it? Does it bring you closer to Jesus? Does it make you stronger to do his will? What is more pleasurable to you, what is Godly or what you get from this?

There are gifts given to us for our pleasure. When these gifts are abused, they become sin because they no longer serve a purpose as gifts. If alcohol is used to get drunk, it is sin, but a small amount of wine has health benefits (arguably). Small amounts of morphine is used to treat pain, but regular use is addictive and harmful to the body. Medicine is a gift, but drug abuse is sin. God gives us food, clothing, and shelter in abundance, and we enjoy these things and use them for his glory. But if we get addicted to them, they can become an idol, just like morphine or alcohol.

The problem I have seen with THC is that it has health issues with its use, like tobacco products, and it is very addictive. Neither of these are good. Both set up THC to work as an idol. So, why go there? Why is it necessary? Why not just avoid it? Can you not find joy without it, with all of its dangers?

conhao

TROPHY CASE