In article <7861A66A-F8FE-28FB-4596-8DB98940C55E@srcbs.org>,
Bob Felts says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:

[snip]

>> >And you dodge the question: what is it that prevents
>> >your so-called "free" will from actually operating
>> >freely?

>> No, I didn't "dodge the question". Rather, you _changed_
>> the question. For your question now, "what prevents free
>> will from operating freely" IS different. If you hadn't
>> ignored my previous post, you just might understand why.

>I didn't ignore your previous post. You didn't say
>anything positive.

So what? You never say anything 'positive'
yourself. Besides: you must make your fellow Predestinarian
Bart cringe with such illogic: whether or not I "said
anything positive" has NOTHING to do with whether or not you
ignored the post. You _did_ ignore it.

>> After all, by now you should have gotten the point: it IS
>> operating freely.

>Then man is insane, since man freely chooses death over
>life. So you only moved the problem. How can the insane
>then make a rational choice?

Even the insane occasionally make a rational
choice. Sometimes by accident.

And no, I have not "only moved the problem". I moved it from
where it cannot be solved to where it _can_ be solved. It is
you who leave it where it cannot be solved and then proclaim
you have solved it.

>> >> But you, of course, refuse to do this, since then you
>> >> would have to give up your dream of hitching your
>> >> destiny to a star.

>> >And just what do you mean by this nonsense?

>> It isn't 'nonsense'. You and every other believer in
>> Calvinistic predestinarianism ignore the abundant
>> Scriptural evidence against your false belief _precisely_
>> because you want to disavow the need to "work out your
>> own salvation in fear and trembling" (Php 2:12), hitching
>> your destiny to a star instead.

>More nonsense. "Work out your salvation" is not the same
>thing as "work for your salvation".

I didn't say it was. That is just you making the same
reading mistake you always make.

> And why is it that you salvation by works types
>always leave off the rest of this verse?

You make at least two inexcusable errors here: 1) I am not a
"salvation by works type". 2) I do not "leave off the rest
of this verse". Take a look in Google: you will see that it
is you "anti salvation by works types" you consistently
twist the meaning of this verse by either leaving off half
the sentence, or insisting on a _flagrantly_ false
understanding of the verb G2716.

Try, for example, the Google query 2:1