Apologies, busy day.
So in in 2Ti 2:25 the word "peradventure" in this context seems to mean something equivalent to "just in case", as in a hopeful uncertainty. Should God will to give them repentance, it should be to the acknowledging of the truth and not necessarily intimidation or harshness like those contentious cage-stage Calvinists might try to pull. In any case, "peradventure" in this verse speaks of Paul's uncertainty about whether God will grant repentance. It doesn't say anything to me of choice or will other than God's.
Correct, but the question you didn't answer (or perhaps you didn't consider) was why Paul would have said "by chance" concerning God giving someone repentance. Why did he not say something like "according to His will?" Well, by chance means that we, who are stuck in time, do not know the will of God, and therefore, because we cannot know such deep things of God, nor even begin to understand the complexities of His judgments, in our own view, it appears as "chance," not knowing the outcome of such things. Therefore, outside of time, God has predestined all those who come to repentance, and inside of time, it appears to be of chance because we do not have full knowledge. Likewise, as God has predestined rewards for all who have done good works, but inside time, we are still making choices because we cannot understand His ways.
However, I was also waiting for you to shrug off the word 'peradventure' used in this passage because that's what most people would do. Now that you have said "
It doesn't say anything to me of choice or will other than God's," and I figured you wouldn't take the time to go do some more Biblical research on the matter, now let's look at something a big tougher to chew on:
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
-Exd 13:17If anyone needs help understanding this, let me know.
I agree that outside linear time all decisions are already made and within linear time we are making decisions on various choices as we encounter them. My question is this... just what is it that makes a person choose one thing over another?
And that is attempting to attain unto the deep knowledge of God, whereas the Bible says we cannot attain such things, it is arrogance in ourselves to believe that we were created with the capability to understand things that complex:
O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
-Psa 139:1-6So, either we believe the Bible that such knowledge is far beyond us, or we don't believe the Bible, and then endlessly debate and try to search out answers within ourselves in vanity. I would say, such is the foolishness of the Calvinist. If David, one who was so highly favored of God, much more than any of us, could not attain it, on what basis should we believe that we should have such knowledge?
Webster's 1828:
WILL, noun [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue.
---> The will is directed or influenced by the judgment.
The understanding or reason compares different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue.
---> In other words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the freedom of the will will is often quite a different thing from desire.
Again, I like Noah Webster's dictionary, but it's not my final authority.
I agree that within linear time there are a variety of choices presented, but if the will is directed by the judgement consider all the possible influences on that judgement! Going with your analogy of visiting your home for dinner... If hunger was not a strong enough influence, I would not have judged that I wanted to eat and would have been content to go without eating rather than to ask for food. If she asked if I was hungry and her question brough my attention to the fact that I was, her question would bring my nature to mind (why yes I actually AM hungry) which would influence my judgement to focus my will on taking the action of accepting a meal. But even after that, if what she prepared was repulsive to me (for example something full of cheese and I happen to be lactose intolerant) my judgement of the appeal of the food is influenced by the knowledge of its ingredients, the understanding of my lactose intolerance, and my fear of the painful and embarrassing after-effects. Regardless of how hungry I was or how good a cook your wife is or how worried I was about insulting either of you by refusing, my lactose intolerant nature would compel me to.
That might fool others, but it will not fool me because I understand what you're attempting to do. For example:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:1-5Now let's suppose the scribe lifts up his hand to speak:
"Lord, what if the shepherd simply lost his keys to the barn lock? There might not be any other way to get into the barn but by climbing up that other way. Also, what if the shepherd has a cold? He might not sound like the shepherd at the time because his voice might be distorted to some degree, and in that case, the sheep would be running from the shepherd instead of going to him!"I don't know if there is an official name for this, but it's what I like to call "hyper-analysis of an analogy," which takes a basic analogy that is meant for basic understanding of a simple topic, and someone blows it so far out of proportion, no one else could possibly understand it anymore. There's always basic analysis of an analogy, because not all analogies are correct, but hyper-analysis is always done by people looking for a way to justify themselves because if you hyper-analyze it and miss the purpose of the analogy,
ANY analogy can be broken down into nonsense through "what-ifs." And this is exactly what the lawyer did to Jesus:
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
-Luke 10:25-29He wanted to debate the definition of neighbor so he could justify his own beliefs (and wickedness) through a grammar dictionary, rather than going to the Word of God. Whereas we typically use Webster's dictionary for clarification, while we back things up with Scripture, what you just did was try to use that dictionary as a foundation for your argument, just as the lawyer was attempting to do with Christ. (And btw, Jesus answered by giving him another parable; because seeing they see not, neither do they understand. Mat 13:13)
I hope you can understand when I say we all have a will but that will is not free. We make our own decisions, but those decisions are in response to how our nature interprets all of the incoming influences together. I know that someone who holds to free will might ask "what if I choose to do something that is normally against my nature?", but in doing that thing they would only show that their nature includes attempting to do things that would otherwise be against their nature.
What you're trying to say, but not say, is that "
We have a will, but it's not really ours," because that sentence doesn't sound as reasonable. The reason you're doing this is because you do not want to believe that people have a choice, and I can guarantee there is a wicked reasoning for it. The real problem is that you believe the omniscience of God makes it impossible for Him to give us free will to make a choice. The God I serve is infinite, but He gives people free will choice, and He gives people over to their choices when their heart has become too corrupt. He has His own way of judging this that we cannot understand.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
-Romans 1:26-28The thing that sticks out foremost in my mind about the "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" message is when you encouraged people to pray that God would grant them repentance. Man even just that request... If someone hearing that was carnally minded, their spiritually dead nature would find that request utterly ridiculous if not repulsive. They enjoy their sin, why would they ever ask to be made to feel bad about it?
I gotta' admit, I laughed when I just read this because that's correct. And that's also the point. Are you not understanding something here? Is it that you do not believe that God can give someone repentance and they can reject it? You say these things as if I had not understood them when I gave that teaching. Of course such a thing would be repulsive to someone given over to their sin, and that's why, when given over to their sin, they will not hear the call of God in which He is not willing that any would perish, and yet, they do.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2Pe 3:9Are you telling me that you believe that God goes against His own will with these people?
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
-Eze 33:11Why did God not say, "
Let me turn you from your evil ways?" Or rather, if He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why is He torturing Himself to not turn them by His own power since the people have no free will?
For many are called, but few are chosen.
-Mat 22:14If God calls them, why are they not chosen? It's call free will choice.
What you're telling us is nonsense Raymond, something that you learned as the rudiments of your education, and my big curiosity is: Why do you so desperately hold onto nonsense? If I can discern the real reason why (and I'm looking for it), I think this conversation will end quickly.
But someone with a spiritually regenerated nature hears; and if they believe and realize that they've never repented, they pray for repentance. Arguably the choice is available either way for both nature, but the will follows the nature and acts on what the nature determines to be most valuable.
Therefore, you believe in regeneration before regeneration of the Holy Spirit. That means you do not believe Scripture.
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
-Tts 3:3-7We were not heirs beforehand, but were made heirs. If you do not believe that, prior to regeneration, we choose to do those wicked things, then you believe that sin is God's fault, and that's dangerous doctrine because it's blaspheme.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
-1Co 15:21If man does not have free will choice, then by God came death, and that's heresy.
Take the example of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate:
Acts 3:1-8
Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour. And
---> a certain man lame from his mother's womb
---> was carried,
whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple; Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us. And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And
---> he leaping up stood, and walked,
---> and entered with them into the temple,
---> walking, and leaping, and praising God.
In his lame state his nature prevented him from walking and leaping, and since he was lame from birth most likely never even considered it a possibility. God changed his nature through John. Free will could argue that he had just as much of an option to sit back down and keep begging, but predestination would say his changed nature compelled him to walk and leap and enter the temple.
Curious for your feedback 
Well, first of all, "predestination" does not "say" anything. That's called personification, and you used it fallaciously. That's like when evolutionists say "science tells us;" that's ridiculous. It's your opinion, your belief, and your analysis, but again, you don't want to believe that because you have "no free will," right?
That man's faith in God's power healed him. That's what you do not see.
The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed,
-Acts 14:9He believed, which is why he attempted to stand up and walk in the first place, and that was indeed a choice. If he did not believe he would be healed, he would not have been healed. He was given a commandment, and he followed it because he already had the humility of repentance and faith in his heart. Nowhere does it say he was saved on that day; that his spirit was regenerated, but rather, it was his flesh that was healed. He went leaping about the temple in praise and thanks unto God, that others, peradventure, might also believe. He was both compelled and given a choice, both being predestined and having free will, having desire and choosing to act on it, but you don't want to believe that, and if we can discern the reason why you don't want to believe that, it will be much easier to get at the heart of this conversation.
