You have lost track of my assertion: That arminianism can fit all of these verses into their paradigm. They can. Your closing words where you say, "Does your authority define "receive" as ONLY volitional?" is exactly the POINT. If it can be seen in more ways than one, then you agree that they CAN (are able) to fit it into their paradigm and thereby see an alternative to your position.
And that's ALL that I'm saying. They are able to see it differently. "
So, in other words, you have no authorative source which defines "receive" as ~ONLY~ "permit entrance" or "voitional" or "invitational".
In other words, you just made that up.
But you have demonstrated ~my~ point -that in order for the Arminian to fit these passages into their "Free-Will" philosophical paradigm, they must change the definitions of words, limit the definitions of words, or add foreign concepts to a passage alltogether -as you have done with John 1:12.
"See my most recent post to Drstevej."
Unconvincing as it utilizes the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma: either we must voluntarily recieve or we must be forced.
In my previous example I gave evidence of how I "receive" a bacteria or germs that cause an illness. In that situation, the "receiving" is not forced nor is it voitional. My will is entirely absent from the process. When I recieved those germs, I was simply not aware. However, once I felt the effect of those germs, I couldn't help but get sick.
When Lazarus recieved life again, did he first have to "choose" to accept this life? Or did he suddenly find himself in a state of life -unaware of how he came to be in that state- from which he previously was not?
Jean