What Is Free Will?: Chosen By God with R.C. Sproul 

Wow...he said that, but it makes sense, it really shows his humility...which is perhaps his most attractive attribute.

LOL - your punishment was truly a privilege then!

😆😆😆

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Glutton for punishment; perhaps; or, perhaps you're one who God loves, for God chastises those whom he loves (Hebrews 12:6).

Ligonier Ministries put them up. 😂

@@mitchellc4 give up dude! Or at least listen to the sermons where you put the same commentaries over and over! And I don't want the replies you already replied to me on the other videos over the last years. You're following a cult! Open your eyes and repent of your dogma!

That would be Ligonier ministries

@@mitchellc4 ....but what about 1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. The Authorized Version

@@mitchellc4 You don't understand the Godhead (Trinity). They are one and the same yet distinct. 1John 5:7 Authorized Version

Don’t sell yourself short. Even the best of teachers are still learning!

You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey everything what is written. You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. Unbeknown to listeners of his philosophy lecture, it’s full of set up and switch and bait methodology. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Them he immediately asks this question, “ How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?” Therefore, RC Sproul concluded, “Man has no freewill” because man has already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same thing with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question follows, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically then and now writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” AGAIN, You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures.

@@papabear887You should listen to yourself . “ Trust and obey all that is written in the Scriptures .” Why don’t you then , instead of twisting verses out of context to make Gods Word say what suits your ideas of what God is like ? If the Father in heaven does not draw a person to the Son , the Lord Jesus Christ , no one can come to Him . John 6;44 “For by grace through faith ye are saved , and that not of yourself ; it is the gift of God ; not of works lest anyone should boast .” Will you still disbelieve the Holy Bible ? Do you think you rejected Satan and chose to allow Almighty God to save you ? Do you have that natural inclination within you to overcome your sinful , fallen nature and seek the Lord and His righteousness ? The Bible says you don’t !

I do but first I need to see him change into a cardigan and more comfortable shoes after entering the room. 😍

Lol! Yes

Do you see this question mark above my head? I get the feeling that you just took a shot, but it missed because I don't get what you're trying to say.

So, you are attempting to say that R.C. Sproul is teaching "human wisdom" as opposed to scripture? Where?

Well, if he approaches the subject from a philosophical perspective (and he does, of course), that's because he has studied so much philosophy as a theologian. And I appreciate your prediction and assertion of my own thinking, but that is quite a dangerous task given that you have not read anything about my theology or my perspective. If you would care to have a Biblical, theological discussion on the condition of the human will, then I am entirely willing and able to do so. While we are “free” to do what we want to do, we are bound in what we want to do by our evil nature and desires (Romans 8:7): we may DO as we please, but we cannot PLEASE as we please. That is to say, we cannot use our will to shape our nature, but rather, it is our nature that determines how we will use our wills. God has given us a will, but that will is most certainly not “free,” (that is to say "autonomous," free of any outside force) after all, the bible says very often, and in many different ways, that we are utterly bound in sin and absolutely incapable of submitting to God (Romans 8:7); in our flesh, we cannot please God (Romans 8:5-8); we cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3, 10-13; 14:17); we cannot seek God (Romans 3:11); we cannot believe in God (John 6:44, 65; 10:26; 12:37-41); we cannot do anything good at all (Job 15:14-16; Proverbs 20:9; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-18); we are utterly captive to sin (John 8:34; Romans 6:20; Titus 3:3); we are prisoners of the devil and constrained to do his desires (John 8:43-45, 2 Timothy 2:25-26; 1 John 5:19); every impulse of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually (Genesis 6:5), and so every action we perform, no matter how “good” we think it is, is actually evil, nothing but “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6). Ever since the fall, we are not free to do anything good whatsoever; salvation is solely an act of God’s will (John 6:44), and we can only begin to do good as the Spirit gives us a new nature (Ezekiel 36:26-27). We are only free when the Son sets us free (John 8:36). There is much more that I could say at this point, but I am hesitant to write a novella without first hearing your own views of the freedom of the will.

Leonard, It's true that many (if not most?) within Christendom have aligned themselves along sectarian lines, calling themselves by their favorite teachers where one will call themselves a "Calvinist," while others will call themselves a "Wesleyan," "Arminian," or whatever, and in all the milieu of competing voices, one gets the impression that they have all variously aligned themselves for the sole purpose of infighting within Christendom. The truth is, I came to the understanding that I have of the Bible without the aid of any of these teachers, although, admittedly, I do enjoy the writings of Owen, Charnock, Calvin, Edwards, Luther, and I do listen to Sproul, MacArthur, and Washer just to name a few... But I came to their teaching, not because I began there with a presupposition, but because I wound up there after many years of my own study, reading the Bible, as well as any theologian that I could get my hands on, until I found writers who taught what I felt was in accordance to the authorial intent of the Bible. I may be wrong, but I have never been given any exegetical grounds to believe otherwise. The condition of the will of man seems to be nothing but a battleground these days, where infighting has caused very much damage to the church, and at the heart of the argument is the very nature of God, that is, His sovereignty as it regards the salvation of man. One of the biggest problems dividing the church is the false dichotomy being created between the requirement for man to believe for salvation on the one hand, and God's choice in salvation on the other - there are many teachers who would say that the Bible teaches an either/or approach to salvation where the one camp emphatically states that "we must believe in order to be saved" while ignoring God's sovereignty over salvation, while the other camp states "God chooses who will be saved" while ignoring the requirement for man to believe. What people in both of these camps need to realize is that the Bible does not present an "either/or" proposition between these two ideas. The truth is a "both/and" scenario: We must believe in order to be saved (Acts 16:30-31), and it is God who chooses who will be saved and grants him the ability to believe (John 6:44, Acts 13:48); if you are willing (Isaiah 1:19), it is because God has made you willing. As to your suggestion - Romans 2:29 is a verse that I have used with my students in teaching the necessity of repentance. The true child of God is not the one who seeks approval by his outward working and keeping of the law, but rather the true child of God is the one who seeks approval from God by obedience which is worked within him by the Spirit.

If the term "unconditional election" is offensive, call it a chicken, what we call a particular teaching is irrelevant, what is important is the doctrine that the Bible teaches. Although there are 5 different ways in which the word "election" is used in scripture, John 6 and Acts 13 are specifically referring to God's election of certain individuals to salvation. God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20, Ephesians 1:4-5, Revelation 13:8, Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13, Romans 9:16, Romans 10:20, 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, 2 Timothy 1:9, John 5:21). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19, Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Romans 9:10-24, Acts 13:48, 1 Peter 2:8) as an everlasting testament to His justice against sin. John 10:26 - "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep." Belief is predicated on whether or not you are one of God’s sheep, not the other way around; note that He doesn’t say “you are not of My sheep because you do not believe.”

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

​@@papabear887I was skeptical of these particular video. I will look more into it myself, but you are a breath of fresh air concerning Scripture and what it actually wants us to know. All we need to do is rely on Christ and we have won already. God bless.

@@mitchellc4 bruh

@@mitchellc4 Repent, Jesus is God.

@@mitchellc4 What does any of this have to do with the initial comment? More importantly your gospel is a false gospel and what you say is heresy. Repent and believe the true gospel. Jesus is God!

@@mitchellc4 1qq

@@mitchellc4 Jehovan Witnesses are a cult, a literal cult.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

I want to respond by asking you if you saw something like this: Since RC Sproul says “every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined”, how about, using the same syllogism style that RC Sproul used, saying then, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. In the use of ‘man’ as the subject, RC Sproul concludes that “man has no freewil” because how can a man be free when he self determines the reason or lack thereof or desired oucome for the choice?? In other words, man is bound by self determinism before his freedom to choose. It would then MUST follow the same xonclusion when the subject is God!! RC Sproul must conclude that GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because how can God be free when He self determines the reason or lack thereof or desired outcome for the choice?? In other words, God is bound by self determinism before His freedom to choose?? I hope you stay far away from the man made philosophy called Calvinism. You only need the Scripture to explain itself with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit teaching you all things. All we need to do is obey the Scripture completely.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

I agree completely with you. RC Sproul however had done something beyond “fruitless that needed to be exposed (Ephesians 5:11).” Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

You are actually insane and make no sense. You would be better off trying to convert people to Christianity, than try to make Christians doubt their faith.@@papabear887

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Alow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately asks this question, “How can a man be free when he already determined the choices he made?” Therfore, RC Sproul concluded, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices he made. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, then RC Sproul must conclude the same thing about God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Speoul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question follows, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically bow and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You only need the Scriotures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey completely what’s writtenin Scriptures.

What is a triune Lord? Jesus Christ is Lord. He is God the Son. The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him, but He is one Person.

@@smeatonlighthouse4384 Notice how LORD is spelled, then comment. Triune God would be another way to write it.

I asked the Good Shepherd about the subject of “free will”. His answer was, “None of My sheep have free will.” I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.

Not so comforting for those predestined to hell ... hmmmm ... I'm so thankful I know the true nature and character of God. He allows us the CHOICE ...

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with question, “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined by him?” Then RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because the choices he made were already determined by him! In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul would conclude the same thing with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this. Using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the parallel question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Him?’ Then RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made were already determined by Him! In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightly and prophetically writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism or any -isms. You just need the Scripture, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Just trust and obey all that Jesus commamded.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

That was teaching? He didn’t explain where desire/inclination comes from. If he can’t explain where desire/inclination arise then he hasn’t explained a single thing. The “devil”', “fallen state” are as much a non answer to origin of our desires as “god”.

@@itneywhat our desires come from our hearts. The desires we have are from a fallen heart and nature which we were given by adam our representative in the garden. Our desires are from our natural fallen state. To put it this way God places us in the family we are born in. He gave us all our senses and we start desiring evil from a fallen state that is not upright and good. So in short our desires come from within ourselves when we experience the good things Gof has given us and we make them filthy in the eyes of God. God created Good. Anything outside of that standard of Good is evil.

@@itneywhat hope that made sense. Our desire comes from ourselves. It's like you have a charecter that you made and set him off on a quest and everything he does is based off of his decisions and you knowing his heart give him the tools and or the ability to do the things you dont want him to do prescriptively, but you want him to do so for your decreed will which was to teach your charecter lessons in which he had to do on his own.

@@itneywhat desire comes from our sense or our heart

It doesn't make sense at all. I'm responsible to correct a situation that I was born into (original sin...take one breath and your guilty!). The BOOK says that I was born with desires (um yeah this guy ate an apple soooo). I never chose my thoughts or desires...do you folks choose your thoughts/inclinations? I'm not asking if you can control your actions but can you control your very thoghts? Free will and an all knowing all powerful god can't make sense. Can you surprise god? He knew you would steal (all knowing, right?) but you suprised him and kept your stick fingers off the goods. I don't understand and I'm very close to calling it (faith, religion) nonsense.

I asked the Good Shepherd about the subject of “free will”. His answer was, “None of My sheep have free will.” I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

@@mitchellc4 Holiness is required of you. Hebrews 12;14. Abide in Him. John 15. There is no time left GOD knows the heart of every man and nothing is hid from HIM. The WORD is our TRUTH. Luke 12:3-5.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@@papabear887 Do you obey Jesus Christ when he says: sin no more? Or do you believe the Living God when He says do right and you will be accepted? May Pappa bear know the Word of Yahweh and not a mere man shalom.

@@truthlighthouse1717Yes , I do. Yeshua (Jesus) delivered me from my known sins back in May 4, 2007 and I have not lived in those sins EVER again. Just as Jesus said in John 8:36, “ So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!”, I am a witness to it. My fight is against false doctrines espoused in all -isms, including calvinism, reformed theology. This is not personal to RC Sproul or any calvinists and redormed theologians. I hope to God that He forgave them. Ephesians 5:11 says, “ Take no part in the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them-“ My hope is to atleast expose philosophy, empty deception, traditions of men, basic principles of the wrold, man made commands and teachings, and false humility that does nothing to stop indulgences of the flesh (Colossians 2). I have already encountered two individuals in RC Sproul’s freewill lecture that have stopped being a christian.

I want to make sure when you stated that “it enriches you so much” that you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism. He said, “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.” Then he asks this question right after that, How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself? Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s logic, “man has no freewill” because man determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired out outcome for the choice. Now using the same argument RC Sproul uses, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. How then can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself alone? Therefore, according to RC Sproul’s syllogism, GOD MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL as He determined the reason or lack thereof or the desired outcome for the choice!!!!!

​@@papabear887triggered wackjob 😅😅😅😅you can't handle truth you are desperate to whine and complain all over the Internet 😅

Even though we may not agree to his thoughts, it can give us additional insight of how other people think.

@@tanparapal1963 it has nothing to do with thought. only spirit can reveal this essential truth of reality you're arrogance in assuming your freedom from god means you have that forever, without repentance..freedom FROM God. all are born separated and the freedom humans seek and never find is evil and disastrous. that's why it's so important to put into perspective. this is the only reality there is and your imaginary self righteous self sufficient self promoting reality is an incompetent delusion.😢

@@QuakerTakerThere you are again. Jesus loves you so much that He reads your comments and takes them seriously especially among the community of believers. I hope you are doing well.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

LeadingEd Did you notice he referenced Edwards and Augustine and fallen man more than the scriptures? Did he even use any scripture? Poor explanation on free will. How could this be excellent without the Word of God? 🤔

Aaron Pilkey God gave us minds for a reason!

Andrew Boone Yes you’re right we have a mind or a reason and He also gave us freewill for a reason. You can’t use your mind if you don’t have freewill. We’re not robots. We have a mind exactly as you say I agree. Minds allow us to reason. We can’t reason without freewill. *Tell me how do you reason with someone with no freewill?* ISAIAH 1:18 18 COME NOW, AND LET US REASON TOGETHER, SAITH THE LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If man has no freewill then is God just wanting to reason with HIMSELF?

@@apilkey The reason he references these men is because they were well versed in the scriptures.

Brad Well what does being “well versed” mean? Does that mean they can quote and reference scripture well? There’s a massive difference between being able to reference passages and actually being able to understand said passages. If being “well versed” in the scriptures included having understanding of what the scriptures actually mean then those men were terribly versed in the scriptures.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote. I hope this helps you and your children.

Patrick Leyerle true! I just purchased His teaching on predestined,and that was a brain twister,but I grew in understanding.

Ask the God's light for help you!

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Indeed!

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

@@mitchellc4 Oh, Jesus is God. He is God. No matter what you say! He is King.

@@kidsgreenscreen9234 Who is the God of Jesus??? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

@@mitchellc4 Do you not know that He came to the world as a server and as a son of man? And ahh, can you read the Bible where Scripture say Jesus is God, He is King, everlasting Father, Before Abraham was Jesus, He is the first and the last, Alpha and Omega, The word became flesh, One King, One God and One Savior,? Do you not read your Bible? Or you fail to understand the context?

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Only until God changes your heart, mind, and will , will you want or love the things of God. EZEKIEL 36:27

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “every choice a man makes AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then right after that, he asks, How can man be free when he made the choices that he already determined? Thus RC Sprouls concludes, “man has no freewill” because his self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome he sought preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus man has no freewill. If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider now this, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. Then the immediate question applies, How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself? Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude that GOD MUST HAVE NO FREEWILL because His self determinism for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome He sought preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill. Thus TC Sproul must conclude God has no freewill. James 1:27 writes, “Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, AND to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:33 writes, “Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” I hope you stay faaaar away from calvinism. You just need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to teach you all things. Your role is simply to obey the Father.

I agree.

I completely agree with you. But RC Sproul made it even worse. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

It's much deeper than what you wrote. It takes a very deep study of systematic theology to truly grasp God's sovereignty over man. We can agree to disagree. God bless you 🙏

@@209coachThanks for your response. I appreciate it.😊

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Cat Cleghorn the point is that you are able, but still do not always do that.

You, obviously, are a stronger Christian that the apostle, Paul. Your statement does not line up with scripture.

Replay the message

@@TheB1nary EZEKIEL 36:26:27

@@TheB1nary We are always doing what we desire most.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul follows it immediately with a question, How can man be free when the choices he made were already self determined? Thus RC Sproul concluded, “man has no freewill” because the choices he made, he already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore his self determinism preceeded his choice and thus precluded any freewill. If that were true, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, consider this Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. Then the question to follow using RC Sproul’s logic is, How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Himself? Thus, RC Sproul must conclude that GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made He already predetermined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome. Therefore His self determinism preceeded His choice and thus precluded any freewill. Then RC Sproul doubles down by pandering, “of course, man has freewill for natural matters”. But for moral matters, to borrow the philosphers views “man has no ability or power for righteousness”. This method of logic is completely in disarray. After equating freewill and determinism as distinct and opposite entities, he now underhandedly and shamelessly pandering the natural versus moral matters to excuse and support his conclusion that “man has no freewill”. Furthermore, he adds that man by nature is corrupt and therefore man is incapable to be righteous or perfect!!! Thus what RC Sproul is saying is that indeed man has no freewill because not only is his choices predetermined precluding freewill, he is also incapable to be righteous or perfect!!! This time freewill is now to be looked at as “to choose ” and “to be”!!! At this point, it now begs the question: “can man freely choose to do right morally at the very least? If a practising muslim or hindu is drowning and sees a rescue boat, begins to wave his arm, screams when he can to save him, calls on his allah, false prophet muhammad, any gods or spirits to save him, but does he really not have a freewill to call on the One True God because he is morally corrupt and therefore morally incapable to call on Jesus but he can call allah? Is it not both a natural matter and moral matter to choose to save oneself from drowning and dying to have life? But why is it not possible to call on God the One True God but can call his allah or false prophet muhammad? To be saved from drowning and dying is one thing but to choose life over death by drowning is another thing. One is “to be” and the other one is “to choose”. Therefore freewill is “to choose”. “To be” is another completely different matter. But to say that “man has no freewill because he predetrmined his choice”’and he is incapable “to be” is a disastrously incoherent argument. Furyhermore, RC Sproul just committed a “bait and switch arguement”. This time, he not only falsely equates ‘choices made as free and choices made as determined’ on the one hand, then to say ‘to choose’ and ‘to be’ on the other hand as a reasonable arguement for “man has no freewill” conclusion. If that were not enough, he underhandedly threw in , “of course, man has freewill to do natural matters but not moral matters”. He then equates natural and moral distinctions on one hand and freewill and determinism distinctions on the other hand!! This type of philosophy is pure mental gymnastics without rules. The target moves constantly. If you answer on the negative, they respond on the positive. If you consider both distinctions as equals, they move to another topic altogether that is unrelated but nonetheless pretend to be universally accepted. The worst part is at the beginning of his so called lecture which I call cunning deception: He promoted the idea that the christians at large believe in his creation of humanistic definition of freewil. He says freewill is “the ability to choose spontaneously “!!!! Then he starts dismantling his own creation by pretending that the vast majority of christians think it or believe it!!! Does anyone really choose spontaneously? Choosing by nature implies some value or lack thereof!!!!! To choose and to will are also two distinct terms. Both have implied value!!! At the very least, they are tools to convey a thought. Freewill is not the absence of influence to want or desire. It is simply to desire or to want despite or in spite of influence or lack thereof or experience or lack thereof. So for anyone to say freewill is to choose spontaneously without inclination, disposition, imfluence or determination, whoever does that? But according to RC Sproul “most christians” do.

Stop being disrespectful

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

That parable is mainly about adoption as sons. The father wants two sons, but in differrent ways, each wants only what is due to him. The prodigal wants at first his assigned inhereitance, only to leave his father and be his own man with the inheritance. Later, he designs, out of desperation, to return and be as like a servant of his father (so that he may eat, and have shelter) and yes, has some hope that as a son, his father may have mercy enough to let him be like as a servant only to the father. But the father welcomes him back AS A SON, A FULL SON, AND REJOICES AT HIS RETURN. The other brother, has stayed and been a dutiful son, in his own mind, EARNING therefore, his sonship. When his prodigal brother returns, he is offended at his Fathers rejoicing. His father reminds him that this entere time whaterver was his (the fathers) has also been his (the elder brother). This story is about how each son sees himself as the agent, earning or abusing, what comes to him by way of their father. The father (god) is trying to give them each EVERYTHING he has, because of his great unending mercy, not their works, etc.

@@mathewlowrey2734 Yes, it's about adoption. The younger son was lost but now has been found, because he's repented & decided to return to his father. It was not the father's seeking (or decision) that brought him back. The elder son though with the father all along, is as good as lost. The younger son made a choice & the father responded by offering his love & adopting him back as his son.

Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.

@@mathewlowrey2734 Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? The goodness that his father had sown in the son’s heart, bore the fruit of repentance. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.

I agree. RC Sproul revealed the fallacy of his argument . Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says “every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question, How can man be free when the choices he made were self determined? Therefore, he concluded, “man has no freewill” because the choices he made were already determined. In other words, self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must also conclude the same way with God. What do I mean? Consider then using RC Sproul’s logic. Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined. Then follows the question using RC Sproul’s logic, How can God be free when the choices He made were self determined? Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because the choices He made were already determined. In other words self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. I hope you stay faaaar away from calvinism. You only need the Scriptures, the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit to teach you all things. All you need is to obey.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Rob Hay , sorry, my friend you are wrong on this. Jude 19 defines the natural man as one not possessing the Spirit. Paul speaks of three kinds of man in 1 Cor 2 & 3. Spiritual, natural and carnal. The spiritual man is the mature Christian. The carnal is what Paul calls the Corinthian believers at the beginning of chapter 3 who he will feed on the milk of the word. The natural man has neither desire (spiritual things are foolishness to him) and he also lacks capacity (cannot know spiritual things). It could not be clearer. This does not mean that the natural man does not have free agency. He is free to do everything that is consistent with his nature. Only when the natural man is born from above - he becomes a new creation - does he now begin his journey to spiritual maturity.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

We first heard this teaching on the radio in the late 90’s. (We’d been saved since the early 80’s.) It was absolutely a fresh understanding of God’s grace to us.

I just want to respond… If RC Sproul is correct that “man has no freewill” then using the same syllogism, RC Sproul must conclude that actually and also God has no freewill!! What do I mean by that: RC Sproul says “every choice man makes is free AND every choice man makes is determined”. And he asks a question right after that paraphrasing, How can man be free when the choices he made were self determined for whatever reason or lack thereof or for a desired outcome? Then he said therefore, “man has no freewill” for the choices he made were previously determined by him. So using the same pattern of logic, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined by Himself. How can God be free when the choices He made were self determined for whatever readon or lack thereof or for a desired outcome? Then , therefore, RC Sproul must also conclude GOD HAS NO FREEWILL for the choices He made were previously determined by Him.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

@@mitchellc4 then ur not a Christian we believe Jesus is God

@@andrewadler4576 Any scripture that says that?? Who is the God of Jesus?? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

@@mitchellc4 u don't knw bout the Trinity???? Jesus has a father but they are one ...jesus died on the cross because he claimed to be God .....

@@andrewadler4576 Who is the God of Jesus??? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Rev 1 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

+Patrick Leyerle Your comment - "All of Humanity is fallen. We need to be made alive by Christ. " My comment - Yes, all of humanity is fallen, but not to the extent that Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches spiritual annihilation, total inability, but the Bible teaches spiritual separation. Man still has the image of God in him and can still willfully respond by believing the gospel to be saved. Romans 1:19-21 - 19 Because that which may be known of God IS MANIFEST IN THEM; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE. 21 Because that, WHEN THEY KNEW GOD, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Since you say that was an awesome lecture, I want to make sure you understood RC Sproul’s syllogism in getting to his conclusion that “man has no freewill”. RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then RC Sproul asks this question immediately right after, How can man be free when the choices he made were determined by himself for whatever reason or desired outcome he had in mind? Therefore, he concludes, by saying “Man has no freewill” as his choices were determined by himself preceeding to the choice!!! If that is true, using his arguement, Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined by Himself. Then using RC Sproul’s prying question after that statement, How can God be free when the choices He made were determined by Himself previously for whatever reason or desired outcome He had in His mind? Therefore, using RC Sproul’s concluding logic, God must have no freewill as His choices were determined by Himself preceeding to the choice!!!

​@@papabear887psychotic wackjob triggered 🤡 no one needs your incoherent drivel cult follower atheist humanist narcissist

@@papabear887 Huh, can we love God without the freedom to choose, which people do everyday? Is love real if not given freely? No, I believe not. If there is no free will then how does Calvin justify those who are predestined, from birth, to go to hell? There's a lot of holes in your understanding of God's word.

@@user-en3pk6qz9oI appreciate your response. Man does have freewill to want or desire inspite of influence or circumstance or the lack thereof. Thus anyone may believe or reject Jesus upon hearing the message. God’s punishment on man thus depends on man’s freewill response to wether he believes Him or not. Love is given and received freely. Children, infants and disabled young ones and anyone below the age of accountability God loves them completely. Where will they be when they die? Jesus once said “such as these (pointing to the little ones) that the kingdom of God belongs.”God’s warning has always been to man or woman- meaning the adults. I was simply responding to RC Sproul’s false syllogism.

@@QuakerTakerJesus loves you so much. The Father cares about you so much as well. He listens and reads your comments all the time. I love you too friend.

I agree with you. I don’t know much Hebrew but quoting the passage from Scriptures does not return void. Since you are commenting on the site where RC Sproul’s freewill lecture is…I would like to respond to his subject freewill. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Just like Molinism, man always needs some wild card to compensate for his inability to understand the nature of God SMH

I agree. Explaining God through the lenses of philosophy is absurd. He knew that all along just before he made his premises but he still proceeded. And continuing with it- what he already thought was contradictory premises-he came out with a “desired outcome”. But he must also come to concluding that God has no freewill Allow me to explain … RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself included) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You (we) don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Leonard Schoeberlein -she doesn’t know you how could she recognize you ??

Maybe she is predestined for damnation ???

thats her free will

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Amen! Even so come Lord Jesus! Thy kingdom come THY WILL Be done! Great comment

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

I'm with you on that.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@@papabear887 You seem to have really nailed the problem with Sproul's argument. I think the core problem is because, as a Reformed theologian, Sproul is dependent on Calvin's bad understanding of free will.

@@grantbartley483Thanks for your reply. I truly appreciate it. 😊

@@papabear887 My pleasure

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Amen. Too many doctrines of devils, leading the sheep to the goat heap.

We are always choosing what we desire most. So even if you would say "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it meant that you did not really desire "this" thing more than anything else, rather you desired "that" thing more than anything else. That is how it goes.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

what determines what you want?

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Good thing you were better than all of those people who were given the same choice and rejected God, while you had the sense to accept Him.

@@rickstark85 I'm blessed by Jesus

@@ironleatherwood1357 yep, chosen and predestined

@@rickstark85 God allows everyone to make a choice. John 3:16-18. Most choose hell

@@ironleatherwood1357 nobody is denying that we make a choice

What is your point? That all men have the ability in their fallen state to choose to effect their own righteousness and new birth?

God is love...

How will you obey until He changes your heart, mind, will, and disposition??? It won't ever happen until God in HIS SOVEREIGNTY AND PURPOSE WANTS TO MAKE IT OR PLANNED FOR IT RO HAPPEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD!!!

Who is the "us"? Who is the "all"?

@@levigarrett5614 From the context of what's said THE US AND THE ALL ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS IN CHRIST JESUS,, REMEMBER THAT YOU MUST HAVE SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE!!!

We cannot Love God we love idols.

@@iacoponefurio1915 you cannot love God? What do you mean mean? Idol? The creator and sustainer of this world an idol? You can love your car, football, golf, your dog etc. and are they your idols? Your creator is not an idol He Is worthy of love and and praise but if you do not recognize it as such is your loss and have the freedom to do so , no one is forcing you.

@@olgaburgos7780 nutjob your self righteousness makes you totally ineligible for the kingdom of God You hate the real God and make your own delusion and call it God You are not a Christian Read the actual bible get a clue

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

You have such a high regard for RC Sproul on this subject. But let me make sure you understood what he said in his syllogism. Because if it is true that “man has no freewill”, using the same logic RC Sproul used, he will come to the same conclusion about God!!! RC Sproul said “Every choice man makes is free and every choice man makes is determined.” Then he asked this question right after it, “How can man be free when he made choices that he determined by himself?” Therefore, he concludes, “man has no freewill” because he determined the reason or desired outcome previously by himself. OK fair enough! Them applying RC Sproul syllogism: Every choice God makes is free and every choice God makes is determined by Himself. Then using RC Sproul’s scrutiny, the question then is How can God be free when He made choices that He determined by Himself! Therefore , RC Sproul must also conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He determined the reason or desired outcome previously by Himself.

In regard to Ephesian 1:4, “ He chose us in the Messiah before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before Him in love.” Then verses 5 and 6 writes “He predestined us for adoption as sons through Messiah Yeshua, in keeping with the good pleasure of His will- to the glorious praise of His grace, with which He favored us through the One He loves!”, Do the passages, individually or together, literally or textually state anything about the absence of man’s participation? I’m sure most would say ‘no’ but calvinism makes an interpretation differently. It’s called eisegesis. It means the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one’s own presuppositions, agendas or biases. Ephesians has 6 chapters describing who believers are, the hope of His calling, what believers were once was, a partnership to God’s people and His household, a call to know the love of Messiah and be filled in fullness, an urgent call to walk in a manner worthy of the calling, a call to maturity toward Messiah’s fullness, insist to walk no longer as the pagans do, to lay aside the old self, be renewed in the spirit to be like God in true righteousness and holiness, to be imitators of God, walk in love and to remember that no immoral, indecent, or greedy person will have any inheritance in God’s kingdom, to walk as children of light, not be a drunkard, to submit to one another, loving wives and submitting to husbands, to obey parents and human masters and to be finally strong in the Lord by outting on the armor. That is a lot of encouragement to be active participants in the love of Messiah and the community of believers. Therefore in Ephesians 1:4-6, does it have a literal or textual statement of the absence of man’s active participation? I ask that question because the rest of the book of Ephesians does.

Bonnie Burrello huh

@@robinl6659 A TREE IS PLANTED, ROOTED, N STILL, FOR THE TREE TO GROW N BLOOM THE NURTURING OF THE SOIL OF THE SUNLIGHT OF THE RAIN MUST BE OR THE TREE IS ONLY STILL N IS NOT FRUITFUL TILL THE TREE ROT! THE NATURE OF THE TREE IS TO BE STILL, IT IS NURTURE THAT GIVES THE TREE MOVEMENT IN IT'S STANDING! NURTURE OVER NATURE OR NOTHING BLOOMS THUS NO FRUIT! DO YOU WATER N WEED YOUR VEGETABLE GARDEN OR FLOWER GARDEN? THUS YOUR NURTURING GIVES YOUR GARDEN LIFE THAT THE GARDEN SUSTAIN YOUR LIFE! GOD BLESS LIFE ALWAYS!🙏🌹🌞🛡🗡🌏

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

In which case your strongest inclination would no longer be "towards something we perceive as being wrong," but rather toward "the the thing we know is right." Apart from a stronger inclination toward the latter (righteousness), you would never resist/forsake the former (unrighteousness).

Don't think I would agree Brian. If that was the case, then we would not be accountable for any of our choices. You only have to say, 'Hey, it's not my fault, I couldn't choose otherwise'. We must place responsibility in the hands of human beings and in order to do this, free will must exist.

This doesn’t negate accountability, but it does affirm that every choice we make, whether good or bad, is ultimately due to the greatest inclination of the will at the moment of choosing. As Jonathan Edwards argues, “In every act of will there is an act of choice; in every volition there is a preference or prevailing inclination of the soul which at that moment takes the soul out of a state of perfect indifference with respect to the immediate object of the volition. . . . Where there is absolutely no preferring or choosing-where there is nothing but an ongoing perfect equilibrium-there is no volition.” In short, “the will is always determined by the strongest motive.” If this weren’t the case, if every choice were equally desirable to us, we would never make any choice at all. Take as an example someone (such as myself) who loves desserts, especially those of the chocolate variety. Tonight I was confronted with the choice of whether or not to indulge in a piece of chocolate birthday cake at my weekly church small group. Now, I could have chosen not to eat a piece of cake (or perhaps two), but you better believe I did. I’m in decent shape, and, despite the fact I’ll have to expend more energy to counter those additional calories, my desire to have cake outweighed my desire not to engage in extra exercise. But suppose I were on a very strict diet, perhaps for serious health reasons, and confronted with the same scenario. My desire for indulging in cake could be just as great as it was earlier tonight. And yet, in spite of this intense craving, if my desire to preserve my health were greater than my desire to eat cake, I would ultimately forego the cake for the sake of my physical wellbeing. Similarly, we are daily confronted with the choice of whether or not to engage in certain sinful behavior; many such temptations can be excruciatingly intense. But we will in the end make a decision one way or the other whether to resist or succumb to the temptation. Consequently, one of these desires, either for obedience or disobedience, must finally win out over the other. And whichever desire wins out is necessarily our strongest inclination, even if an opposing inclination initially appears strongest. Otherwise we would choose according to that different/opposite inclination, in which case it would prove itself to be the strongest inclination. The choice we make reveals what we truly desire most, in which direction our will is most strongly inclined. Again, as R.C. notes, a will that is equally inclined toward all possible choices is a will that cannot and will not choose. Of course, it is only by the spiritual regeneration wrought by the Holy Spirit that fallen man, who is spiritually and morally “dead in trespasses and sins…by nature [a child] of wrath,” can possess a genuine desire for obedience, and thus freely choose obedience over disobedience.

I will read your reply carefully and then get back to you. Thanks and God bless :)

I have read your response and it certainly makes logical sense but I feel it fails to understand our responsibility. Our choices shape our desires. In fact, choosing and desiring are not mutually exclusive, they are heavily connected. My desire to do right grows stonger when I realize the benefits of those choices. Your desire to do wrong grows stronger when you continue to be willingly decieved and head down the path fo self-indulgent behaviour. Choice and desire are not mutually exclusive.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Humans are totally immoral

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Calvinism is satanic "do what thou wilt" and "keep on sinning that grace may abound".

Please read my response to RC Sproul’s “fruitless deeds of darkness-philosophy- that needed to be exposed (Eph 5:11)”because it’s even worse than that. Two have already stopped becoming christians. They previously commented on this site and found the lecture to be way too much for them to just even come to the simple knowledge of God through Jesus while the other felt hopelessness. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” We don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Same :-)

mccafferty697 :(

May I be so bold as to correct you and offer the correct term, 'biblical' in the place of sproulian?

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

2 god b the glory. Foreever more.

@@barbaranunn5984 amen

Well he knows the TRUTH now ... Salvation is available to ALL, but not all will receive it. We don't serve a CRUEL God who created people for the sole purpose of burning in hell for eternity.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined? Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘student’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

From my research it could've been recorded between the '80s and '90s. Nearly 40 years ago! It was true then and is still true today.

Look at the style of clothes

The books and podium are from the sixties, the haircuts are seventies, church folks tend to lag behind culture, I guess early eighties..

You have never met a person connected to reality or properly taught in the bible

I agree but RC Sproul’s lecture reveals an even worse problem within itself. Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately asks the question, “How can man be free when he already determined the choices he made?” Thus he concluded, “Man has no freewill” because he already self determined before choosing what he wanted. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul would come to the same conclusion about God. What do I mean by that? Consider this: Using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined’. Then the similar question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined by Him?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude, GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already self determined before choosing what He wanted. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded His choosing and thus precluded any freewill. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet none are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism nor any -isms. You only need the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Just trust and obey the Scriptures completely.

Then why doesn't the word say he died only for the ones he chose. Why does he say he wants none to perish? He then in fact didn't die once for all he died died for the ones he wanted to save the rest he then wanted to perish. Calvanism makes no sense to many other verses.

Hi there. John 6:44 and John 6:65 is in the context of Jesus’ outlandish claims. During that time Jews understood that a physical manna was what their forefathers ate. But Jesus claims “I am the Bread of life. Whoever comes to Me will NEVER be hungry and whoever BELIEVES in Me will NEVER be thirsty (v35)” “I have come down from heaven (just like the physical manna) not to do MY own but the will of the One who sent Me (v38).” “this is the will of MY Father, that everyone who sees the son and trusts in Him may have ETERNAL LIFE; and I will RAISE him up in the last day (v40)”. Then some of the Jews started to grumble about Him because He said “I am the bread of life that came down from heaven”. They were saying, “ Isn’t this Jesus the son of Joseph, whose father and mother were know? How can He now say, ‘I have come down from heaven? (v 41-42) Thus so far, Jesus’ claims have been beyond outlandish as He calls Himself the Bread from heaven that whoever comes to Him will NEVER go hungry and whoever BELIEVES in Him will NEVER go thirsty, and that he who trusts in Him will have eternal life!!! Then because of their grumbling in disbelief , Jesus then said: “Stop grumbling among yourself! No one can come to Me unless My Father who sent Me draws him- and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the Prophets (meaning the old testament), ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has LISTENED and LEARNED from the Father comes to ME (v 44-45).” Therefore, what Jesus was saying was that the outlandish things He said and claimed could only be understood if they listened and learned from the Father. Jesus is referring to the Moses Law and other prophets that continued the Laws that the Father first gave to Moses for the Jews to observe. This was more than the manna. This was about the Unleavened (no yeast) Bread that the Father instructed the Jews to observe for seven days as in the Matzah Feast. But the Jews did not understand it even though they have been observing it year after year. But the ones who listened and learned from the Father about the Bread of Life as they observe the yearly 7 day day Unleavened Bread Feast, they were the ones the Father drew to Jesus. If you don’t believe it, Jesus made an even far more outlandish claim. This time eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood!!! “I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat and not die. I am the LIVING bread, which came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread , he will live forever. This bread is My FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world ( v 48-51). Then the Jews began arguing with one another, “How can this man give us His FLESH to eat? (v52)” Then Jesus DOUBLED DOWN, “Amen, Amen, I tell you, unless you EAT the FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN and DRINK His BLOOD, you have no life in yourself. He who EATS My Flesh and DRINKS My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (v 53-54)”. The Jesus TRIPLED DOWN FURTHER, “ For My flesh is REAL FOOD and My blood is REAL DRINK. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him (v55-56).” He said these things while teaching at the synagogue in Capernaum (v59). “So when many of His disciples heard this, they said, “This is hard teaching. Who can listen to it? (v 60).” “But Jesus knew His disciples were murmuring, so He said to them, “Does this offend you? (v62)”. Thus Jesus said, “For this reason I’ve told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by the Father (v65).” From this time on “many of His disciples left and quit walking with Him (v65).” Therefore, just as the Living Bread is written in the prophets (v45), eating of the flesh is also in the Prophets!!! But it is not what you think. The Father gave Moses instructions about a Passover Lamb. It is to be a year old, unblemished male selected from the best of the herd. They were to inspect it for four days, slaughter it on the twilight of a specific day and month, and to eat the flesh of the lamb or goat over fire on the evening of the Passover Feast and the blood to be sprinkled on the doorpost and crossbeam. This was to be a yearly commemoration of God preserving them from His wrath during the Exodus era. The application to the crowd that Jesus was talking to was that He was the Passover lamb or goat that they eat every year on Passover Feast. Along with that, they also eat the Unleavened Bread- the Bread of Life- for seven days (symbolizing completeness). Thus the passage that says “No one can come to Me unless My Father who sent Me draws him…”, simply means in that context that unless the Father taught them, unless they listened and learned from the Father what He gave to Moses and the Prophets will they come to Jesus because the Law and the Prophets wrote about Jesus in their practice of eating the Bread of Life/ the Unleavened Bread for seven days and the Passover lamb or goat and the sprinkling of the blood on their doorposts. Thus if the Jews truly listened to the Father, they will learn and will be drawn to Jesus. Those of them who were not taught by the Father Himself were not drawn to Jesus thus many of His disciples upon hearing these outlandish claims of Jesus quit walking with him.

Allow me to respond to RC Sproul’s lecture on freewill… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

YS Lim The holy spirit gives you a desire for Christ then you can choose him of your own free will.

@@jts400hp But if it chooses you and your only will is to server......how is that freewill?

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@@papabear887 I'm not so sure of "free will." Ephesians 1:1-4 "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." How can you have free will if he chose you before the world was created? What contribution did you make to your birth? Birth parents? Place of birth? DNA? Nothing! Romans 8:29 "29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

2) In regard to Romans 8:29-30, the text when read plainly is understood plainly. To suggest that “those He foreknew” to mean that He arbitrarily chose them irrespective of human participation is again reading into the text. It simply means that God knew beforehand or before the foundation of the world and He also predestined them to be conformed in the image of His Son. And He also called, justified, and glorified those whom He predestined to the image of His Son. Or, in another way When text is read plainly it is understood plainly. Nothing in the text above suggests that those whom He foreknew had no participation in it. It simply stated that “those whom He foreknew, He also predestined…” Also nothing in the text suggests that “those whom He predestined to conform..” were abitrarily chosen. What the text says is plain and simple that God foreknew and that those He foreknew, He predestined to conform to the image of Jesus the Messiah. Now Romans 9 is even better in explaining Romans 8…

@@papabear887 You didn't comment on Ephesians. Did Adam and Eve have a choice to be created? Enoch was taken up from this earth by God in Genesis 5:24. Did Enoch have a choice? Isaiah 40:3 "3 A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." This is a prophecy about John the Baptist by Isaiah through the Holy Spirit 700 years before his birth. Matthew 3:1-3 "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare[b] the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.’” John The Baptist had no choice! What he said was told before he said it. This stuff is very interesting! 😀

@@choward5430Hi there. God bless you. May His shalom be with you and your dwelling. Its Shabbat shalom also! Anyway, I actually commented on Ephesians 1:3-4(5) and explored the entire book of Ephesians to support the first chapter. You probably just need to scroll up. Otherwise let me know. As to your question whether Adam and Eve had any choice before their creation. The answer is no. God is outside of time and so when God decided to create earth and mankind, Adam and Eve did not exist yet. Their existence came into the scene when time began or when the days of creation began. So it’s not that they had no choice or participation in their existence…Adam and Eve did not exist just yet when God planned to create the earth. But someone asked RC Sproul about Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Before Adam and Eve knew sin or committed their first transgression, they chose to sin. They did not have a sinful nature to begin with at the very beginning and yet chose to sin. So the question was: ‘why did Adam and Eve chose to disobey God when they had no sinful nature and thus had an unentangled freewill ?’ RC Sproul said: “I don’t know.” In other words, if freewill is contingent upon the nature of man, why then when man who at the beginning did not have a sinfu nature still chose to disobey God? On the other hand, since after the fall of man, “all sinned” and thus carried with it into the foregoing generations a sinful nature, why do men still choose or are inclined to sin? What is the difference? The answer is none. Freewill is not affected by sin nature (although man will choose to sin because of it being a spiritual condition or problem) nor is it that freewill is not affected by the absence of sin nature. It is simply a tool God gave for mankind to be able to express freely their intentions. The third of the angels before they fell chose to rebel and disobey God. Now that they have been cursed and yet are still in rebellion and disobedience. However, the 2/3 of the angels who remained faithful to God did not rebel and they remain faithful. The same with Adam and Eve. Before they had the sinful nature, they had freewill to obey or disobey. After their first sin, they continued to have freewill to obey or disobey. Now to your point on John the Baptist, you have claimed that based on Isaiah 40:3, John was called to speak and had no choice in the matter. I must refrain from commenting because I have not read anywhere where you sourced that impression other than John showing up in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The most description of him is in Luke chapter 1. His father Zechariah prophesied about him that in verse 76 “will be called a prophet of God, for you will go before YHVH to prepare His ways”.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@@papabear887 Really?!

@@bowingheartsThanks for your response.

@@papabear887 no problem. God bless you

He's pointing out a fallacy of the humanist view of free will. You are absolutely correct in that God is the only uncaused cause. The reason for the existence of this view is that humanists refuse to carry their arguments to their logical downfall.

Brian Rush what is the logical downfall precisely?

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

@@mitchellc4 good showing for the God head. I only see 2 in the God head

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

@@mitchellc4 Repent of your blasphemy.

@@Tre492 Hello What exactly did you have an issue with?

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@Bastian B - Just to make sure I'm following you correctly: I desire Coke more than I desire Pepsi. Therefore there's no point talking about free will. Is that about right? If so, what does it look like for a person to change their desire about which soft drink they want? Can a person decide "Next Friday, for no good reason, I'm going to change my desire, and prefer Pepsi instead of Coke, and from then on, any time someone puts the choices in front of me, I will desire [and therefore choose] Pepsi"?

Can you choose right now to desire Pepsi more than Coke? Can you choose your desire?

In terms of "fault", it depends what you mean. God is causatively responsible for our bad choices (in that He is omnipotent, and could have ordained that something else occur) but not morally responsible for our choices (in that these are the choices of other moral agents). The distinction between primary agency and secondary agency is important here. "If we can only choose what we desire most in any particular situation" that is correct, but the "can" there is moral, not physical. In other words, it is obviously open to an Orc not to pillage a town; the Orc could just go for a walk. But morally speaking, the Orc is so depraved that it can't help itself but choose otherwise. So there is an important distinction between physical inability (where the moral agent wouldn't be responsible for its actions, since it was physically unable to do otherwise) and moral inability (where the orc is so corrupt it won't choose otherwise, and in that sense is "unable" to). In this sense, we are like the orcs. Now, does the Orc's moral inability to choose otherwise remove moral guilt? I can't see how it does - if the orc is so throughly bad that it couldn't choose something other than the bad, I don't think that removes moral guilt. Wouldn't that rather increase it? Not only was wrong done, but it was done with an evil passion for that evil. Your last comment: so yeah, our "free will" doesn't include the ability to choose our desires. So any definition of free will can't contain that choice. Our will is free in that we do what we want to do, and it was open to us to choose otherwise. Does that make sense?

Bastian B See a fellow drop his wallet. You pick it up, it's thick with hundreds, give it back immediately? Keep it all. Take half or all the cash and get the wallet back? Are you penniless or just homeless....Will the wallet owner reward you if you're honest? Understand you keeping all or half. Grateful for getting his credit cards and drivers license back only. Think, not my fault guys stupid, sell or use credit cards too...

@Bastian -- "Then we must ask *IF* we can choose our desires." Not within Calvinism. Your desires were chosen for you, by God when He created you in the womb with a nature inclined for evil, that you *FULFILL* His immutable decree. For their Confessions specifically state God alone has decreed whatsoever comes. So if they say, " You can change your desire for Pepsi or Coke", yet, after you've selected one over the other, their doctrines teach *THAT* choice itself was a *fulfilment* of God's immutable decree, you could NOT have chosen otherwise. The conclusion is obvious, everyone's a puppet made of flesh & blood within their systematic, and the "wants" & "desires" you're a slave to, are the *strings* God uses to have absolute control over you, to get you to sin, or to obey for His glory, outside any human will or exertion.

Unfortunately, your line of thinking is a logical fallacy that's as old as dirt: you cannot infer ability from an imperative. In other words, if you think about it, you'll realize that it's a fact: just because you see a person receive a command does not mean the person has the ability to obey the command. EG: A back-seat driver can yell "STOP THE CAR", but if the driver is drunk, he doesn't have the ability to stop the car. Or a crowd can yell to a trapped arson victim "GET OUT OF THE HOUSE", but if the victim can't get to the fire escape, they will die in fire. Those examples may appear extreme, but Martin Luther addressed precisely your points page 159-161 of "Bondage of the Will", and described it an essential truth of logical reasoning. He said to Erasmus: "Even grammarians and schoolboys on street corners know that nothing more is signified by verbs in the imperative mood than what ought to be done, and that what is done or can be done should be expressed by words in the indicative" ..and perhaps more specifically... "The passages of Scripture you cite are imperative; and they prove and establish nothing about the ability of man, but only lay down what is and what not to be done." p161 And of course, Luther wasn't the first to observe this truth. Aristotle (and many other philosophers before him) acknowledged this as well. Even the Bible acknowledges this truth: [+] ​Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. (Jer 13:23) In conclusion, man has a sin nature. Because of his sin nature, he cannot help but desire sin. Just because we see commands for him to do otherwise does not mean he can. He needs his nature changed. He needs to be regenerated.

Salvation by Grace Through Faith - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. That is what James 2:10 states, but we will use "your" words for this reply..."You" just exclaimed Damnation on Tim Foster...Pray tell what place does your statement place YOU in the eyes of God? My self I like to spend some Quality time in Romans (Mostly Romans 9 for this subject) but Truth can be found throughout the Scriptures and the TRUTH is this: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Be blessed and have a Godly day (Don't condemn Folks to Damnation please...It's NOT Godly)

None of those texts contradict what Sproul is saying. Every single text you're citing was given to God's people. Not to become God's people but because that's God's will for His people. God breaks the chains that enslave us to sin in order that we become free of the power of sin and choose to obey Him.

The Pilgrim ACTS 16:29-31 29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED? 31 And they said, BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. The BIBLICAL answer to this question as clearly stated in this verse is simply BELIEVE. **The Reformer’s answer to this question is, “well actually sorry bro there’s actually nothing you can do you gotta be elected to believe first then God has to effectually call you and then He gives you the faith to believe.” If it was unconditional the answer would’ve been, “NOTHING. YOU’VE EITHER BEEN ELECTED OR YOU HAVEN’T.” But what was the answer? There was a CONDITION. What was the condition? THEY HAD TO BELIEVE. The condition was FAITH in Jesus Christ. Clearly a NT passage that asserts man has the freewill to make a conscious decision for Christ.

The Pilgrim John does not refute that. ...According to John 1:12,13 do you have to receive Him first in order to be given power to become His son, or does He give you power to be His son first so you can then receive Him? Does He give power to them that believe or does He give power so you can then believe afterwards? JOHN 1:12,13 12 BUT AS MANY AS RECEIVED HIM, TO THEM GAVE HE POWER TO BECOME THE SONS OF GOD, EVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE ON HIS NAME: 13 WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but OF GOD. **The born again process is not of the will of man but of God. Faith happens BEFORE and not during. Regeneration is 100% God and 0% man. It’s clear that the regeneration in verse 13 happens only to those in verse 12 who RECEIVED Him.

Allow me to respond… RC Sproul says, “Every choice a man makes is free AND every choice a man makes is determined.” Then he immediately follows it with a question: “How can a man be free when the choices he made were already determined?” Therefore, RC Sproul concludes, “Man has no freewill” because he already determined the choices before making them. In other words, man’s self determinism preceeded his choosing and thus precluded any freewill. If that is true, RC Sproul must conclude the same way with God. What do I mean by that? Consider this, using RC Sproul’s syllogism, ‘Every choice God makes is free AND every choice God makes is determined.’ Then the immediate question is, ‘How can God be free when the choices He made were already determined?’ Therefore, RC Sproul must conclude: GOD HAS NO FREEWILL because He already determined the choices He made. In other words, God’s self determinism preceeded the choosing and thus precluded any freewill. Next , RC Sproul pulls the rug suddenly from under you because like a salesman doing a regular ‘bait and switch’, he now must say, “Of course, man is free to choose whatever he wants!” This time, in order for him to answer two seemingly contradicting statements he just made (if you were not confused enough), he switches to another philosopy - ‘philosophy of ability’. This time the concept of natural ability and moral ability is introduced. It goes like this: Man has freewill to choose anything that is natural because he certainly has the ability to do them. However, “man has no freewill” to choose moral matters because according to other philosophers (and himself including) “moral ability is the ability and power to BECOME righteous/perfect.” So the bait and switch has already begun: From the original syllogism of ‘free choice’ AND ‘determined choice’ arriving at “man has no freewill” conclusion, he surreptitiously injected the concept of ‘ability’. Thus this time it goes like this: “Man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not BECOME righteous or perfect on his own ability or power. (Do you see the set up? Do you really believe that man can not choose ANYTHING in matters of moral issues? To become righteous or to be perfect, no man is able nor can become one- that is absolutely true. But do you really believe that you have no freewill to choose God upon hearing His word while a sinner? But the set up is laid out). However, man has freewill to CHOOSE natural issues because he has the ability and power to do them within his human limitations. Ever wonder why RC Sproul never clarified his original premises? It is because he has a DESIRED OUTCOME. That is to force a philsophy that “man has no freewill”. Otherwise, if he were honest enough to his ‘students’, his original syllogism will be even more catastrophic and simply gibberish!!! Try rephrasing the syllogism by adding “moral” or “natural” choice. It won’t work! Now to state that “man has no freewill” to CHOOSE in matters of moral issues because he can not become righteous or perfect is another conditioning or setting up he is about to play in the minds of the unsuspecting. What RC Sproul is saying is like this: a practicing muslim or hindu when drowning but seeing a rescue boat at a distance may wave his arm, scream for help, call on allah, call on their false prophet muhammad, call on their gods and spirits, call on anyone or anything but the same can NEVER EVER happen when the drowning muslim or hindu chooses to call on the One True God, or Jesus, or say in his heart ALONE as he is drowning deep into the water: “if there is a true God, please help me…I’m drowning…” ….all because of this doctrine: “MAN HAS NO FREEWILL” , according to calvinism, to CHOOSE issues regarding moral matters. It is a set up for another calvinistic human philosophy as indicated by his reference to Romans 3. James 1:27 writes, “ Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself UNSTAINED by the world.” Colossians 2:23 rightfully and prophetically now and then writes, “ Indeed, these are matters that have an appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and humility and self-denial of the body-yet NONE are of any value for stopping indulgence of the flesh.” You don’t need calvinism, RC Sproul or any -isms. All you need is the Scriptures, the Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Trust and obey all that the Bible wrote.

@@papabear887 Do I see the setup? Man has no freewill to choose in moral matters on anything. Because, of his inabilty and power to become righteous or perfect. Got you: So here we are in the Garden. God created everything and said, it was good. He made man and put him in that good place of natural. We see they had freedom except this one tree. R.C. Sproul said, man has the power on the natural ability. So things were good until... Well, Eve first takes from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam follows. Did not the serpent plant a decision for them to eat this forbidden fruit? If there is NOT any freedom to choose here, then we have to say God predestined that they bring sin in this world. After all,it was now a moral issue in fact, a command not to eat. In Genesis 4:6-8. Read it and see there is no twist of a freewill option. God told Abel if you doest well shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. Did not God give Cain a choice to do good or evil? Yes. I believe God knew what would happen and knew who will come to Him. Why would God tell his Apostles to go out and spread the message of the Gospels? Why waist that time if it was already decided. Why preach the Bible at all if they can do what you said in the end. All you need is Scriptures. Is that not a decision for one to read or not to read. In closing...I agree with your last statement because that is exactly how I gave my life to the One God. Jesus Christ Lord and Savior of my sins. In fact, he was the One who told me I was the sinner because I kept on asking, why does God's choosen people keep sinning. God has also said, my people perish for the lack of knowledge. They chose sin and not the One who can help them become perfect one day most likely when the saved recieved thier new bodies. God's Word has the power and people make a moral choice not to read it. God gave us all a soul...and the freewill to choose I rest my case on Deut 30:19. Proverbs 3:31 Isaiah 7:15. My final point: Psalm 25:12 What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall He TEACH in the way that he should go. Only then can we choose His way.

⁠@@jmbbk4737I appreciate your response. I just wanted to show to viewers that RC Sproul’s syllogism while already horrible in all its presentation, that even before he began to use it, already claimed a contradictory anachronistic set of terms but still proceeded to make the premises: “every choice a man makes is free and every choice a man makes is determined”. Thus I wrote.

@@papabear887 Sorry. I read you wrong. I thought you believed in R.C.'s teaching on this subject. He once used the story of Joesph who was sold by his brothers and ended up being high in Pharaoh's empire for his case. He told his brothers. You made it for evil but God made it for good. We all best be careful who we listen to. The twisting of God's Holy Word is being transformed into a man-centered gospel with new-age arriving for an emergent church to mingle together with Catholicism. Yeah. A one world religion and many other entities who are eager for peace without the Prince of Peace. Very exciting but troubling times are here. May the Lord strengthen us and give us more courage to run the gauntlet. Peace to you Papabear887; over and out.

@@jmbbk4737God bless you soldier of the Living God.

Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. God allows free will in His children until they are trained. Once trained it is not free to depart. I am forever praising and believing Jesus Christ and this is pleasing to God.

If a person would claim: "i desire this thing more than anything else but i will choose that thing instead" it means that this person did not desire "this" thing more than anything else, he rather desired "that" thing more than anything else and this is why he chose it.