"I see no evidence in the Word that faith and repentance are gifts from God."

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No, I'm sorry, that's not the case. echaristhe is aorist, which means the verbal is not made "with reference to one point in time, as if decided upon"... not one point in time. Aorist during Middle Greek is an overall past tense.


Correct, and that is what I stated, that the "granting" or better yet (as indicated by the aorist), the "permitting" was done at one point in time in the past, which is what I said. It was ordained that men not only exercise faith in Christ, but also to suffer for His name.

This passage does NOT state that God gives people faith, it states that God ordained that men walk in eternal life through faith and by suffering for His sake.

And of course the issue again remains: faith is faith. God gave it. God gave faith.

Two points you are confusing here...First, there are two different words for faith, as you should know, since you seem to know some Greek...pistis and pisteuo...and they do not mean the same things.

Second, God did give us "the" faith...the system of belief in Christ in order to come to God the way He designed us to. Saying that faith is faith is tautological...you just said nothing, in other words, of any value.
 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Rom 12:3 "as God has allotted to each a measure of faith".



Yes, but what does "measure" mean?

Measure = metron, which refers to "man's measure as common, ordinary."

Also, just looking at the phrase above...in original order of the words...

"hos ho theos emerisen metron pisteos" = "according the God assigned measure faith"

In other words, God has decreed that faith is common to every man, that is the exact opposite of what you teach. You teach that only certain people will have faith by God's design, by election. God states that faith is common to all, and that all have the responsibility and ability to choose to exercise faith or not.

Point is, faith is NOT a gift given by God, for faith is trusting belief, and if you are made to trust, then it really isn't trust, now is it.

:preach:
 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
you do realise FAITH is a fruit of the Spirit ? that it comes by hearing the word of God - and you still fail to see it is imparted by God's grace.


You are confusing two different kinds of faith.

Saving faith, which is trusting in Christ for eternal life (pisteuo), and then faith that is one's convictions and beliefs (pistis). The word for faith that is the fruit of the spirit is pistis...your convictions and beliefs...these are fruits of the Spirit, and they grow within the person through time as they walk with God.

You are advocating that faith is given to the person in order so that they can become saved, walking with God in eternal life, and in this you are misinterpreting the passages. The Fruit of the Spirit comes after we enter into the Covenant with God, it does not come in order to make us believe so that we can enter in.

This is a different kind of faith that comes from hearing the Word of God, giving us the chance to choose to believe and then exercise faith in Christ. Two different kinds of faith being blended together in order to try making your point. It doesn't work.

:preach:
 
Upvote 0

spiritual warrior

Active Member
May 27, 2011
283
12
Travelling from here to glory...what a ride!
✟489.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Paul and Peter on the subject:
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

Yes, He does, but no where in scripture does He state that He does actually do this. Pointing out that I can kill someone does not mean that I will, you are drawing nefarious conclusions.

22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? Rom 9

We have been over this before, too. Paul states, "what if..." and that in no way, shape, or form means that He does. He simply states "what if..." It is the same as saying "what if I plant some flowers in the back yard today." It does not mean that I will, though I have the power...it is simply "what if."


7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"
8and
"A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 1 Peter 2
Yes, and when correctly interpreted, this states that those who disobey the Word are destined to stumble, yet you make it appear to be what it is not.


:preach:
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Correct, and that is what I stated, that the "granting" or better yet (as indicated by the aorist), the "permitting" was done at one point in time in the past, which is what I said. It was ordained that men not only exercise faith in Christ, but also to suffer for His name.

This passage does NOT state that God gives people faith, it states that God ordained that men walk in eternal life through faith and by suffering for His sake.
Nah. It's not "permitted". It's "given".

1. to do something pleasant or agreeable (to one), to do a favour to, gratify
a. to show one's self gracious, kind, benevolent
b. to grant forgiveness, to pardon
c. to give graciously, give freely, bestow
1. to forgive
2. graciously to restore one to another
3. to preserve for one a person in peril​
Strong's
Two points you are confusing here...First, there are two different words for faith, as you should know, since you seem to know some Greek...pistis and pisteuo...and they do not mean the same things.
The verb and the noun form are asserted to mean different things.

No they're not. One's a noun. The other is a verb.
Second, God did give us "the" faith...the system of belief in Christ in order to come to God the way He designed us to. Saying that faith is faith is tautological...you just said nothing, in other words, of any value.
Your own words have argued against you. Of course the noun gets promoted as to a specific reliance by a specifying article -- that is, the content of faith can be termed, "the faith" in Greek just as it can be termed "the faith" in just about every Indo-European language. :doh: That doesn't mean the words change meaning. Greek has a preference for pushing nouns to their product use, too. So far no big deal with the meaning of the noun.

The noun is "reliance". The verb is "rely". Flitting about to particular precepts jumps to a couple thousand years of religious development in the language. It's not present in the First Century.

And so what's said, suppresses the meaning of God's words, which I would consider to be worse than valueless.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, but what does "measure" mean?

Measure = metron, which refers to "man's measure as common, ordinary."

Also, just looking at the phrase above...in original order of the words...

"hos ho theos emerisen metron pisteos" = "according the God assigned measure faith"

In other words, God has decreed that faith is common to every man, that is the exact opposite of what you teach. You teach that only certain people will have faith by God's design, by election. God states that faith is common to all, and that all have the responsibility and ability to choose to exercise faith or not.

Point is, faith is NOT a gift given by God, for faith is trusting belief, and if you are made to trust, then it really isn't trust, now is it.
Sadly engaging in personal attacks across this board doesn't help your cause.

Apparently this position being advocated now leaps to the point of making faith universal. Romans 3:26, cf. :28. "so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" "and those he justified, he glorified" Romans 8:30. Proof by contradiction: not everyone is glorified, so not everyone has faith.

The fact is, faith and believing are the same: one's a noun for the verb. And so the end result, faith is not universal.

Tracing back on this argument, God gives faith in measure.

metron -
1. measure, an instrument for measuring
a. a vessel for receiving and determining the quantity of things, whether dry or liquid
b. a graduated staff for measuring, a measuring rod
c. proverbially, the rule or standard of judgment​
2. determined extent, portion measured off, measure or limit
a. the required measure, the due, fit, measure​
Strong's

It's the quantity of faith. God gives faith in quantities. So God gives faith. :wave:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, He does, but no where in scripture does He state that He does actually do this. Pointing out that I can kill someone does not mean that I will, you are drawing nefarious conclusions.
I'm not. "As indeed he says in Hosea" -- God says and doesn't do. Hm. Yeah.

Plus: "Will what is molded say to its molder" -- God's the molder but didn't mold what's molded. Hm. Yeah.

This is getting to the point of implausibility. Paul's clear. This is chopping Scripture to try to fit something else in it. Something that's not there.
We have been over this before, too. Paul states, "what if..." and that in no way, shape, or form means that He does. He simply states "what if..." It is the same as saying "what if I plant some flowers in the back yard today." It does not mean that I will, though I have the power...it is simply "what if."
So Paul has not answered the objection. Hm. Yeah. It'd be great for free-willers if that were true, but Paul is answering a plausible objection. He's pointing it out as a reasonable explanation for why God molded people for destruction. Paul's "what if" is about God's patience. Paul has already asserted that the faulted was molded by God. No "ifs ands or buts".
Yes, and when correctly interpreted, this states that those who disobey the Word are destined to stumble, yet you make it appear to be what it is not.
Ignoring the tense of "destined" doesn't help. All that's needed is to point out what came first: the destining or the disobedience.

Destined. Then obedience. Then stumbling. That's the order.
 
Upvote 0

Tzaousios

Αυγουστινιανικός Χριστιανός
Dec 4, 2008
8,504
609
Comitatus in praesenti
Visit site
✟19,229.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Lets begin with the definition of fatalism - the doctrine that whatever happens to you has been determined already, that you cannot get away from your destiny, that you are simply living out what was predetermined about you and you have no control over it.

Okay, thank you for defining your terms. However, Augustine did not believe this nor teach it. Did you get around to reading the references from The City of God which you requested?

spiritual warrior said:
When we mix this with atheistic means, you have atheistic fatalism. When you mix it with Christianity, then you have "christian" fatalism...meaning that God has already determined everything that you are going to do, everything that happens to you, that you have no say so in the matter and cannot change anything because "who can resist God's will?"

Well, bringing up "atheistic determinism" is pointless considering neither Augustine nor Calvin were atheists. Therefore, it appears that you wish fallaciously to associate the two in order to demonize them further because you disagree with them. Also, Augustine did not teach what you call "Christian fatalism." This would have become apparent if you had read his works.

spiritual warrior said:
Whether one goes ultra-crazy and believes that God determined what pair of socks he would put on today, or simply states that God has predetermined who will walk with Him in glory...whichever level of such is taken, it is fatalism.

No, it is not. You are playing fast and loose with your definitions again, and this appears to be another attempt at fallaciously associating the two. The former is hyper-Calvinism and the latter is closer to what is generally considered to be the classical Calvinist definition of election.

spiritual warrior said:
that is fatalism to a certain level, whether we involve Augustine or Calvin or not. Scripture does not teach this anywhere.

Suddenly saying Augustine does not matter comes across as hedging your bet since you originally set him up in order to vilify Calvin. I agree that Scripture does not teach fatalism or hyper-Calvinism anywhere.

spiritual warrior said:
Not "having influence or certain kind of control" but direct, purposefully making it happen because He wants it to happen.

What? Why can't God purposefully make something happen because He wants it to happen? That seems to reject the notion that God has an active, determinative (not deterministic) will, which Scripture proclaims.

spiritual warrior said:
Yes, God does do things that He wants to happen, like the flood, or creation itself, but no where is it even hinted at, taken in context and properly, hermeneutically, interpreted, does God tell us that He chooses certain ones for life and all else for eternity in flames solely based upon His election. That is a slap in the face to God and to His character.

Here you imply that God's will must always be scrutable to His creations. In other words, He must inform them or descend to their levels for them to understand what He does and his reasons for doing it.

Scripture does not teach this but that God's ways are not man's and are not obligated to be scrutable by man. Thus, it only becomes "a slap in the face to God" when one's presupposition is against Calvinism, and when one's prerogative is to discredit it by fallacious associations and false analogies.

spiritual warrior said:
I have no intent on demonizing the man. All I have been trying to say from day 1 is that what he wrote was not then, nor is it now, properly interpreted according to the whole Word of God. To me, you clinging to Calvin and thinking that he was right on the money is the same as you clinging to David Koresh thinking that he was right on the money.

Right. "No intent on demonizing the man" = Calvin as Koresh and Calvinists as Branch Davidians. I see the subtle rhetorical association. What is next, the old "Calvin murdered Servetus therefore Calvinists are potential murderers" trope?

spiritual warrior said:
...nor is it now, properly interpreted according to the whole Word of God.

No, rather interpreted according to one's presupposition against Calvinism.

spiritual warrior said:
We are to be like the Bereans and take what men say with a grain of salt and study the Word on our own to see whether what man says is true or not. Sadly, more than not, men seem to want to stick with what they originally were taught...they seem like they can not lay aside their dogmatism and look at scripture with a fresh, clear eye to ascertain whether or not what they have is truth.

First of all, it is a false dichotomy to imply that Calvinists have not also arrived at their positions by "being Bereans" and studying the Word. Secondly, it is a common rhetorical trope (that is tossed about frequently in Soteriology) to imply that Calvinists blindly follow "the doctrines of a man" instead of Scriptural truths. Thirdly, it is an additional false dichotomy to say that Calvinists follow mere "dogmatism," while their challengers follow the fresh, clear, spiritual biblical truth. Thus, this entire paragraph is an exercise in rhetorical excoriation and is without substance.

spiritual warrior said:
I am not picking on Calvin, nor Arminius, but they both were wrong on certain points in their personal theology

Right, though Calvin and Calvinists = David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. Does that make Arminius Jim Jones and Arminians cyanide Kool-Aid Drinkers? The audacity of this kind of logic!

spiritual warrior said:
especially since neither one understood that God deals with us through covenants. Their doctrines missed completely the fact that all scripture that deals with redemption originates and is to be interpreted through the covenant from which they originate.

Funny, since most historical-theological treatments of classical Calvinism consider it to be in the category of covenantal theology. Most Calvinists consider themselves covenantalists.

spiritual warrior said:
The plain fact is...if man has no free will to choose God or the world, then God implementing the covenants was not only nonsensical and a waste of time, but is actually illogical and immoral against God's revealed character.

No, I am sorry, it does nothing of the sort. Rather, the above quote shows that you must presuppose a philosophical concept of "free will" in order for Scripture to make sense, and for God to be worthy of your worship, while those who do not presuppose "free will" are to be considered to be believing in something non-sensical, illogical, and immoral.
 
Upvote 0

jeremiah1five

Active Member
Nov 25, 2010
343
6
United States
✟662.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Yes, but what does "measure" mean?

Measure = metron, which refers to "man's measure as common, ordinary."

Also, just looking at the phrase above...in original order of the words...

"hos ho theos emerisen metron pisteos" = "according the God assigned measure faith"

In other words, God has decreed that faith is common to every man, that is the exact opposite of what you teach. You teach that only certain people will have faith by God's design, by election. God states that faith is common to all, and that all have the responsibility and ability to choose to exercise faith or not.

Point is, faith is NOT a gift given by God, for faith is trusting belief, and if you are made to trust, then it really isn't trust, now is it.

:preach:

QUOTE: "Yes, but what does "measure" mean?

Measure = metron, which refers to "man's measure as common, ordinary."

Also, just looking at the phrase above...in original order of the words...

"hos ho theos emerisen metron pisteos" = "according the God assigned measure faith"

In other words, God has decreed that faith is common to every man, that is the exact opposite of what you teach. You teach that only certain people will have faith by God's design, by election. God states that faith is common to all, and that all have the responsibility and ability to choose to exercise faith or not.

Point is, faith is NOT a gift given by God, for faith is trusting belief, and if you are made to trust, then it really isn't trust, now is it.
"

RESPONSE: No, YOU ARE saying faith is common to all men, but that is not true, at least where this term is found. Faith is based on knowledge...knowledge of God's Word (or promises). Some believers have more knowledge of God's Word, or promises, and their measure of trust is larger because the have more of God's Word or promises to trust. A neophyte does not have as great a measure of trust in God's Word as does a pastor who's been studying and understanding more of God's Word or promises for , say, 30 years. We must first have knowledge of God's Word, and second, we must understand that Word. Faith may be "common" to believers, but they do not have the same measure of this "common" faith. Some have more and some have less.

As a side note: We are predestined in God's plan to trust only so much of the promises of God as God has decreed. When you have reached that measure then it's time to go home. Mission accomplished. God is sovereign. Jesus declared it: "THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS in heaven."

Our trust (faith) must have something to rest on. If it doesn't rest on what God says then it has nothing upon which to rest (1 Jn. 5:9).

When we fail to trust God at His Word we are in effect calling God a liar.

 
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
RESPONSE: No, YOU ARE saying faith is common to all men, but that is not true, at least where this term is found. Faith is based on knowledge...knowledge of God's Word (or promises). Some believers have more knowledge of God's Word, or promises, and their measure of trust is larger because the have more of God's Word or promises to trust. A neophyte does not have as great a measure of trust in God's Word as does a pastor who's been studying and understanding more of God's Word or promises for , say, 30 years. We must first have knowledge of God's Word, and second, we must understand that Word. Faith may be "common" to believers, but they do not have the same measure of this "common" faith. Some have more and some have less.

As a side note: We are predestined in God's plan to trust only so much of the promises of God as God has decreed. When you have reached that measure then it's time to go home. Mission accomplished. God is sovereign. Jesus declared it: "THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS in heaven."

Our trust (faith) must have something to rest on. If it doesn't rest on what God says then it has nothing upon which to rest (1 Jn. 5:9).

When we fail to trust God at His Word we are in effect calling God a liar.


Amen bro !

scripture is crystal clear faith is NOT common to all men ;

2Thes.3

[1] Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
[2] And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟79,726.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The Apostles had no qualms about thanking God for the faith of Christians , why would they thank God for the faith of Christians if faith didn't come from God ? (again the Arminian view fails)

I Thess 2

[13] For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The Apostle here is thanking God , why ? "because " the preaching of the Gospel was made by God effective , these believers accepted the word of God IN FAITH , and the reason we thank God for the faith of believers is because God has everything to do with it !
If God merely presented the opportunity for faith then the results cannot be traced back to God and thanksgiving would be vain , empty , feigned Praise .

2Thes.1

[1] Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
[2] Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly,

again , The Apostle looks in thanks to the source* and grower of men's faith , The Lord , if not Him then fake Praise is being rendered. Such Praise would be nothing but a sham.

*Heb 12

[2] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
 
Upvote 0

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I would love to, here is a link to one of them: My Tesimony: Part 1

My Testimony: Part 2

Hey again brother,

I looked through both of your testimonial sections, and found that your journey differs by quite a bit from mine. I read the second part of your testimony, and found that your conversion was based upon a man called Cornelius Van Til. Was that the only man who brought you to Calvinism? Or were there other people you think God has personally used?

Also, I find that you didn't really describe why and how you knew God used Cornelius to teach you the truth. I know for one fact that God can teach us through the Word directly, without any teaching from man. Paul, one of the greatest apostles in the first century, himself said that he received the Gospel by direct revelation from Jesus Christ. So could you tell me how you know God is using Cornelius to teach you the truth?

I do think though that depending on one man to know the truth is very risky, I fell into that mistake and almost was led astray. The man I listened to did preach some truth, but he also preached errors I believe. When people pointed out his error, he reacted hostily though he later repented to some whom he insulted. I never listened to him since then. That does not mean that man is a false teacher, I don't see enough fruit to judge that, but that does tell me that relying on one man or even a group of men is not enough to know the truth. Jesus did warn us of blind guides who lead the blind, and that should be enough to warn us not to rely on what men teaches, no matter how convincing men might be.

When I say do not rely on men's teachings, I mean to exclude the apostles and prophets. These men are specially chosen to deliver messages from God Himself, and they have the anointing and power to do miracles ordained by God. They have direct evidences that what they say is from God Himself. But many modern teachers do not have such evidences, and even if they have, we still need to test the spirits to see if they are of God and to see if the messages they preach is exactly what the early apostles delivered. Anyone who preach another Gospel or another Jesus is definitely not of God, no matter how much miracles are done.

That is the doubt I see from your testimony, because it appears to me that you are very convinced that what Cornelius preached is God's truth. I personally don't know Cornelius or his teachings, but I would still hesitate to conclude that Cornelius is 100% reliable in delivering the whole counsel of God. Did you prayerfully examine what he teaches? Or are you more convinced because he presented very good arguments and support for his theologies? If your yes lean more to the second question, I would be worried for you. No single men in this world can know everything, even Paul knew in part and he only delivered what he did know from the Lord. I doubt Cornelius could be any better than Paul or any apostles in the first century.

I don't mean to question your testimony, but I do see some possible risks involved. Perhaps I failed to see the whole picture and I don't know what God has done through Cornelius (if He indeed did so), but the ambiguity in your testimony is worth contemplating upon. I hope you see where I am coming from, and I hope you will continue to seek the truth by prayers and by meditating on the Word. You are welcome to discuss with me any biblical doctrines in PM if you so wish.
 
Upvote 0

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
but you have , you made some assessment and told me by your prejudgement that I must needs avoid theologians and go to God and scripture alone , I have done that and that is why I am Calvinist !

I would say that to almost anyone I feel are in error, and that has nothing to do with their personal testimony. Maybe you can show me your testimony and why God brought you to Calvinism?

consider another possibility.

What possibility? I have addressed the contradictions and you didn't address my arguments. What possibility am I supposed to consider when I am still waiting for answers to those contradictions I see?

you have seen but not believed those many scriptures displaying faith and repentance are gifts .

here's another . "faith comes by hearing the word of God" if it comes it is not sourced by man nor is it resident in men from birth otherwise it could not "come" .

I did look at the verses you gave in your first post, and I am still trying to understand them. Until then, I cannot give you any answer.

Nevertheless, faith comes by hearing the word of God means that we need to hear the Word BEFORE we can exercise faith. It doesn't say faith comes FROM, but faith comes BY. There is a very big difference here, you need to figure that out.
I told you , I do not rely upon man , in fact one of the tenets of Reformed faith is Sola Scriptura !

Reformed faith or theology, whatever it may be called, originated from a man called John Calvin. So if you rely on Reformed faith, you rely upon man. Simple as that.

why is so difficult for you to follow ? faith is a fruit of the Spirit as is love joy peace ; if a person has faith they are faithful.

Moreover shall we who have been given this wealth of fruit place it in a fridge ? no , hence there is that ongoing movement in the Spirit .

The disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith , it seems they had no problem connecting the source .... perhaps the Lord told them "don't be silly you created your own faith , you increase it " !!! chapter and verse not found !

Yes, but what faith are you talking about? Faith in Christ is believing in and being faithful to Christ, but faith can also mean being faithful to your spouse, your company and so on. The fruit of the Spirit is faith, but does it refer to faithfuless to Christ or faithfulness to other things or both? That is what needs to be distinguished.

Yes, the disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith. Yes, the Lord did not ask them to increase their faith themselves. But neither do we see the Lord saying "I'll increase your faith then." Why then did He not agree to increase their faith, if indeed faith is a gift from the Lord? Did the Lord not say ask, and you will receive? But the Lord said:

If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Why is the Lord not increasing their faith since it is a gift from Him (if indeed it is so as you say)? You tell me.
 
Upvote 0

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The statement is not an error, it's actually what Scripture says, and therefore it should be propagated as the truth of the Word of God against viewpoints alleging differently.

Cornelius was regenerate.

Where is the evidence from the Word that Cornelius was regenerated BEFORE Peter came to him with the Gospel message? Where?
 
Upvote 0

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
God circumcises the heart.

Certainly God circumcises the heart, but God also commanded His people:

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. (Deut 10:16)

So how? Is God the only One involved in circumcising the heart? Or is a person's heart circumcised by God by his/her yielding to God in obedience? You decide.

Paul and Peter on the subject:
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? Rom 9

7So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,
"The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,"
8and
"A stone of stumbling,
and a rock of offense."
They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 1 Peter 2
Any philosopher could tell you, it is totally consistent with all sense and right-mindedness.

It's also Biblical.

In Romans 9, Paul merely asserts that God has every right to mould us into whatever form or shape He wants. This is indeed true, but then look how he went on to answer. He used "WHAT IF". What does that tell you and me? He is only making a presumption, and he is defending that God though He is inclined to show anger towards sinners, yet bore with much endurance these "vessels of wrath".

In 1 Peter 2, Peter is merely telling us that those people who DISOBEYED the Word were appointed to stumble, BECAUSE they disobeyed, not because God appointed them to stumble.

Now if you, by any chance think that the above verses prove that God destined people to His wrath or destruction apart from man's own disobedience and rebellion, then let this verse be known to you:

Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live (Ezekiel 33:11)

Since God does not delight in the destruction of the wicked, then He cannot predestine people to destruction unless they persistently disobey Him. Again, Calvinism's theology that God predestines people to destruction solely based on His will is in error.
Exactly the same; not the same. Sorry, "in His image" is nothing more than, something is in man that is present in the invisible God.

Produce a citation or retract. BTW, "The Potter's Freedom" (the title contradicts this assertion) as well as Calvin's "Institutes" point out that your allegation about God and indeed Calvinism is patently false.

Get facts straight. That's why you feel attacked, your facts aren't straight.

See above.

I did not get the facts wrong. Calvinism does assert that people's fate (whether they are saved or lost) is decreed by God, and it does affirm that God's grace is "irresistable" and that He predestines people to hell. That leaves people with no choice but to either be saved by His "irresistable" grace or be doomed by His predestination. People have no choice but to unwittingly submit to either of these two outcomes. This makes people void of free will, and without free will, people are no different from programmed robots. This IS the logical conclusion that we get from this theology, no matter how we look at it.

I am glad that in no way is Calvinism right about all these issues that it tries to address. I am glad that God does NOT delight in the death/destruction of the wicked and I am glad that mankind does have a free will and can choose between the two outcomes. I am also affirmed by the evidence in the Word that people CAN resist God's Spirit and thus God's grace IS resistable.

I am not the one under attack. Logic and reasoning are under attack. So is the truth of God.
Oh? The Apostle Peter thought differently.

He didn't. You interpreted 1 Peter 2 contrarily to what Peter really meant.
That's clearly not the case. There's no reasoning here that requires God to do something He already knows will not save people. He knew Israel would rebel. He continued to send prophets.

So it's flatly clear God knows, and does things. Why? Speculating, because they're the right thing to do.

Ok, so is predestination the right thing to do? Do you think it is right that people are predestined to destruction when they cannot exercise a choice to choose salvation? I ask you this question, because that's what Calvinism say God does. Do you think this is right? If not, why does Calvinism assert that God would do such a thing? In fact, saying God predestines people to perdition without giving them the power to choose salvation directly contradicts Ezekiel 33:11, because God does NOT delight in the death of the wicked. Now, what do you think? Is Ezekiel right, or is Calvinism right?

God has pronounced some souls as His children, and given them eternal life.

So? God also pronounced all souls sinners and deserving of judgment, none are exempt from His wrath. If God somehow predestined some to repent and be saved, and predestined others unable to repent and be saved, then God cannot judge all because not all are given the same ability to repent. God cannot be angry with those sinners who simply have no power to repent and stop sinning. It makes no sense at all. Since God is equally angry with all sinners, then all sinners have the same power to repent and turn away from sin. Calvinism's predestination doctrine is wrong, totally wrong.

Obviously this argument doesn't hold at all.

I can say the same thing with ALL your arguments, but unless you show me evidence that my argument does not stand, what you say here means nothing.
Faith is not causative. Belief is an associated characteristic of those who are saved. Faith is not salvation. Christ is Savior, not our faith.

You did not address my argument, but went on to talk about what I did not mention. Try again?
Is that body your body? Wait, someone gave it to you, so it's not yours.

What logic has it that something given to you isn't yours?

Tropes like programming robots don't enhance your argument. You've programmed a robot that believes? Wow! It believes, huh. And you don't think you've given that to your automaton. Hm. That's a logical contradiction.

You clearly did not understand my arguments. I am talking about the causation effect and not about ownership. I used the idea of robots because Calvinism does reduce all of us to robots predestined by God to accept His salvation or reject it. It is very clear that programmed robots do not really have any genuine emotions or beliefs, and under Calvinism, we are considered robots who are pre-determined by God (through His creation work in us) to believe in Christ or disbelieve in Him. If that is indeed true, none of our faith or lack of faith is genuine since we are but programmed to have faith or no faith in Christ. This is what Calvinism gives us.
Libertarian Free Will has had many problems in philosophy because its conclusions are nonsensical. It's why most philosophers are compatibilists.

Calvin was a compatibilist. Calvinists are mostly compatibilists.

I am not a liberal, neither am I talking about philosophy. This is irrelevant to addressing my points.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In other words, don't for a second think you aren't biased one way or another. We should all try to be open minded here. That goes for me too.

Could you respond to this:

...I have had a bit of discussion with you, but some of my posts earlier on was not tackled by you. For instance, I said that believing God has chosen us to be saved can also be a source of boasting because it can make some of us think we are "special" in God's sight simply because we are the "elect". This, you never addressed.


The truth has been spoken already: God is no respecter of persons. If God does not show partiality, then there is no reason that He can choose people to be saved or doomed apart from man's own free will choice. The only way God chooses is because man has already made the choice, and God brings things to pass because He foreknew their choices. Whom He foreknew He predestined: This means God foreknew the entire being, from his/her character to his/her choices in life. This foreknowledge of God is indeed the foreknowledge of every single one of us in totality, but knowing everything about us also means knowing our choices in life - whether we choose to believe in His Son or not. This is not inconsistent with what the Word says.


I do believe God chooses and brings things to pass, the matter of dispute is not whether God chooses or brings things to pass, but HOW and WHY He chooses and brings things to pass. The Calvinism viewpoint makes it seem that God chooses and brings EVERY SINGLE THING (be it good or evil) to pass solely based on His desires and will. But here is the problem:


God can never desire or will for something evil to happen. I repeat, God never desires or wills evil things to happen in His universe. Saying that He does is accusing Him of being responsible for the evil things in this world, because God is responsible for His willful actions and desires as well, since He is the Ruler of the Universe. If God has a will for evil things to come to pass (which Calvinism asserts), then surely God is at least partly responsible for the evil in this world and He wouldn't be a judge anymore since He Himself is responsible for things He judges. Delving into the logic behind Calvinism exposes easily the contradictions that it poses against the Nature of God and His Word. God's will is always to do good, and always to bring GOOD things to pass. He has no will or part in the evil in this world, He allows evil to happen, but that has nothing to do with Him wanting the evil to happen. This is the true and holy nature of God. Willing and allowing things to happen are two TOTALLY different things - Willing is deeply connected to an innate desire, but allowing does not mean desiring. I believe you are confusing the two here, Skala. If my will is to bring a stealing incident to pass, then I am already considered responsible for the stealing because my will approve of stealing. Are you now going to say God is responsible for all the evil in this world because it is His will to bring them to pass? Does God approve of the evil in this world through His will? God forbid!


That brings us back to the question on HOW and WHY God brings things to pass. Since God cannot approve of evil (so evil events are not His will), then God allows them to happen not because He approves of them, but because He either meant to turn the evil into good (as in the case of Joseph's slavery in Egypt), or simply because He has given those who do evil to a reprobate mind because they refuse to honor Him even though they knew His existence (Romans). But even in these events, where do we see that God approves of the evil that is allowed to happen? Nowhere, so these evil events can NEVER be even part of God's decreed will because willing something already means approving something.


Same thing with election of the saved and doom of the unsaved. God chooses men to be saved because He foreknew EVERYTHING about them, which includes their choices of salvation. God also allows people to be doomed, because He foreknew they would reject His Son, but does that mean God wants people to be doomed? No, because the Word clearly says:


For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.


Perhaps you are going to say that the two "world" refers to different things, but how can that be? If God did not send His Son to condemn the world, then surely the world refers to every single sinner (even those who will reject Christ). Then immediately, the Lord said He was sent so that the world through Him might be saved. Again, it is clear that the world here refers also to every single sinner (even those who will reject Christ). God has made it clear that He has sent His Son to give the world (every single sinner) a chance to be saved, and the final outcome rests in the choices of man.

Now you may say that Christ does not fail, so how can He die for those who will be lost? But that is a faulty reasoning. Christ's work on the Cross is simply to take away the sins of the world and to destroy the works of the devil, His work is not to guarantee EVERYONE to be saved. His blood shed already accomplished the two primary goals, and anyone who accepts His atonement receives the full effect of His work without fail. Christ did not fail in His work because man are lost, no, man are lost because they did not choose to accept His successful work on the Cross. Even though Christ's work is to remove the sins of the world, there is a condition that man must meet before he can inherit this work of Christ: that is faith in Christ. This has again nothing to do with Christ's failure, but how God decreed it to be. God can indeed decree Christ to take away the sins of every sinner apart from their faith in His Son, but that is not what God wants. Applying a condition on man in no way makes Christ's work ineffective. God has made His gift of salvation 100% successful and effective, but He wants sinners to accept His gift with gratitude, not with an unwilling heart and forced will.


Putting all these things together already fully refutes what Calvinism teaches regarding how God chooses a few to be saved and others to be doomed. It also refutes the idea that God somehow approves of evil by willing them to come to pass. God chooses with His foreknowledge (of all His creation), not with His desires for only a few to be saved. God allows evil to come to pass, but He never approved of it in His will. He is just, and He will ultimately judge everyone according to their works. The will of evil men dooms them, but the will of the righteous are in line with God's will....
 
Upvote 0

jeremiah1five

Active Member
Nov 25, 2010
343
6
United States
✟662.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Amen bro !

scripture is crystal clear faith is NOT common to all men ;

2Thes.3

[1] Finally, brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified, even as it is with you:
[2] And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

Thank you for that 2 Thess. 3 passage. I was coming in this morning to review, and your "part" has complimented my "part" and in this we see a greater "whole" of the doctrine of Christ.

We must all see the same Jesus.

We must all say the same thing as God.

Concerning this post...the Word of God has gone forth is answer to the author's questions, statements, and lack of understanding. We either plant or water, but God gives the increase. When all is said and done it is time to walk away and see whether the soil will take the Seed. There is nothing wrong with the Seed. But I see that this post is becoming redundant. If the author does not receive the truth of Scripture then all the repeating that is coming forth will not stir his "faith" IF he is NOT a child of God.

Or, as you said..."all men have not faith" and he is not in the Body of Christ, and no matter what may be said here he will not receive the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14).

One either receives or rejects the Word of God. There is no medium.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did not get the facts wrong.
You did get the facts wrong.

"Under Calvinism's reasoning ... the God who created us would not have free will either..."

And your expansion on this subject baited and switched the subject in doing so, simply omitting the most obvious falsehoods in trying to scrape together some credibility.

Retract.
Calvinism does assert that people's fate (whether they are saved or lost) is decreed by God
Every Christian believes this. Matthew 25 has it down: God makes the decree and it's carried out. There's no injustice in this situation.
,That leaves people with no choice but to either be saved by His "irresistable" grace or be doomed by His predestination. People have no choice but to unwittingly submit to either of these two outcomes. This makes people void of free will, and without free will, people are no different from programmed robots. This IS the logical conclusion that we get from this theology, no matter how we look at it.
This is false. Retract it. You have zero, zilch, nada support nor citation for this situation, and it's not a logical conclusion of Calvinism, in fact the theology that explicitly denies this is situation results.

First, form the standpoint of choice, everyone has both options available -- the problem is that of the human will being evil, it will always naturally choose corruptly. Everyone is doomed by the verdict of God. Everyone is guilty, no one has escaped. And everyone is witting. We're aware that we're not good, even in the midst of denial, because the good is perfect. Imperfection deduces that we're not good.

The remainder, that a lack of willingness to do good somehow makes us robots, it's downright silly. It has zero support from reason or logic. People are corrupt. So they will, corruptly. That simple. It's not robotic. It's well-deduced reason.

And Calvinism, again, flatly denies that people are robots -- a falsehood alleged centuries ago and exhumed whenever someone wants to attack what they're prejudiced against. This kind of flaming is inappropriate. The Spirit of God changes people, not robots. But that doesn't reduce the truth: the Spirit of God changes people.

This unthinking identification of Calvinism is false. Retract it, or cite the source of this false viewpoint so we can see its origin.

If you have no source, then a retraction is in order. It's false. It's not fact.
I am glad that in no way is Calvinism right about all these issues that it tries to address. I am glad that God does NOT delight in the death/destruction of the wicked and I am glad that mankind does have a free will and can choose between the two outcomes. I am also affirmed by the evidence in the Word that people CAN resist God's Spirit and thus God's grace IS resistable.
"Those He called, He also justified." So by rejecting the Scripture and embracing a view of free will found nowhere in Scripture, your position is found to be unScriptural.
I am not the one under attack. Logic and reasoning are under attack. So is the truth of God.
Yes, but by your advocacy of an illogical and unreasonable position. Therefore it's false.
He didn't. You interpreted 1 Peter 2 contrarily to what Peter really meant.
It's what Peter said. It's what Peter meant. That the opposing position has to defy basic grammar is a clear denial of the opposing position. Peter knew how to write Greek. :doh:
Ok, so is predestination the right thing to do? Do you think it is right that people are predestined to destruction when they cannot exercise a choice to choose salvation?
They're welcome to choose salvation. Their wills will not.
I ask you this question, because that's what Calvinism say God does.
False. Retract.
Do you think this is right? If not, why does Calvinism assert that God would do such a thing? In fact, saying God predestines people to perdition without giving them the power to choose salvation directly contradicts Ezekiel 33:11, because God does NOT delight in the death of the wicked. Now, what do you think? Is Ezekiel right, or is Calvinism right?
What power? The power to defy their own wills? You're the free-will advocate, isn't that pernicious to you? Making people do things against their sinful wills ... oh, the horror!

No, free-will advocacy is not Scriptural, and it's not plausible. "No one is good but God alone."

So much is misrepresentation in your posting. Once again, retract.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟34,309.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thirdly, the fact that God has pronouced every single soul under heaven as sinners and that all deserve His judgement shows that all souls are created equal, and have equal rights to salvation. Saying that God has predestined some to salvation and others to damnation shows that souls are not created equal, and this is what Calvinism asserts. If such assertion is by any chance true (which I whole-heartedly do not believe it to be so and I thank God that we are given equal rights to salvation), then God could not pronounce everyone as sinners nor could God consider anyone righteous in Christ.
Predestination without assessing the will or actions of the person, as Calvinism flatly states (as does Scripture, Romans 9:16) pulls the teeth out of this argument.

God has in fact created everyone with the same humanity.

So that's false.

Identifying this falsehood as Calvinism is simply more falsehood from the poster.

God can indeed pronounce everyone as sinners, and some as saved in spite of their being sinners.

And that's Scriptural. We are sinners, saved by unmerited favor.

It's what Calvinism asserts.

The attempts to tar Calvinism with falsehoods are only that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Terene

Bondslave of Jesus Christ
Mar 21, 2011
591
23
China
Visit site
✟8,378.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You did get the facts wrong.

"Under Calvinism's reasoning ... the God who created us would not have free will either..."

And your expansion on this subject baited and switched the subject in doing so, simply omitting the most obvious falsehoods in trying to scrape together some credibility.

Retract.

Calvinism does indeed say we have no free will, so where did I get the facts wrong? You do know what free wil means, don't you? Calvinism teaches that man has a will, but that will can only allow us to choose evil and never good. But that is clearly against all logic and reasoning, it not only contradicts the Word, but also contradicts reality. Calvinism paints a world where everyone is either a thief, a murderer, an adulterer or some other sinner who cannot stop doing evil. Only those who believe can choose to do good. But clearly, the reality we see is different: even those who disbelieve give alms, and condemns murderers, rapes and frauds. But under Calvinism, the reality that we see of unbelievers doing good and condemning evil should not exist, but yet it does.

Every Christian believes this. Matthew 25 has it down: God makes the decree and it's carried out. There's no injustice in this situation.

Matthew 25 talks nothing about how God predestined people to salvation or destruction. It talks about the Kingdom of God and what happens when the Son of Man (Jesus) comes. In fact, Matthew 25 clearly shows that people are rejected from entering the Kingdom of Heaven because:

1) They did not have enough oil in their lamps
2) They were lazy and did not put the talents that was given to work
3) They did not do good to the poor and help the needy

None of the above even talks about God predestining people to anything. People were rejected from entering the Kingdom and were sent into destruction because of what they themselves failed to do.
This is false. Retract it. You have zero, zilch, nada support nor citation for this situation, and it's not a logical conclusion of Calvinism, in fact the theology that explicitly denies this is situation results.

First, form the standpoint of choice, everyone has both options available -- the problem is that of the human will being evil, it will always naturally choose corruptly. Everyone is doomed by the verdict of God. Everyone is guilty, no one has escaped. And everyone is witting. We're aware that we're not good, even in the midst of denial, because the good is perfect. Imperfection deduces that we're not good.

The remainder, that a lack of willingness to do good somehow makes us robots, it's downright silly. It has zero support from reason or logic. People are corrupt. So they will, corruptly. That simple. It's not robotic. It's well-deduced reason.

And Calvinism, again, flatly denies that people are robots -- a falsehood alleged centuries ago and exhumed whenever someone wants to attack what they're prejudiced against. This kind of flaming is inappropriate. The Spirit of God changes people, not robots. But that doesn't reduce the truth: the Spirit of God changes people.

This unthinking identification of Calvinism is false. Retract it, or cite the source of this false viewpoint so we can see its origin.

If you have no source, then a retraction is in order. It's false. It's not fact.

Are you kidding me? Calvinism asserts "irresistable grace" and "predestination of God" everywhere. It's all over the place. If people can reject that grace or change their fate, then "irresistable grace" and "predestination of God" does not exist. And if people cannot reject the grace of God or change their fate, that means they are indirectly being FORCED to accept whatever God chooses to bestow onto them. They have no power to choose otherwise from what God has chosen for them, leaving them CHOICELESS.

What you fail to realise is, since human will is corrupted to such a huge extent that it can ONLY choose evil like Calvinism asserts, then there is already no choices to begin with. If there is only one option left under a corrupted will, there is no choosing to begin with. One option = NO CHOOSING. This is basic common sense. Since there is no choosing to begin with, we are but robots following a path that God has already chosen for us. This is the logical reasoning under Calvinism.

If human will is indeed corrupted to such an extent, then again God cannot judge people until that corrupted will is repaired. According to Calvinism, we are born with a hoplessly corrupted will, like an inherited disease we cannot shake off. God, knowing that our corrupted will is INHERITED from Adam and Eve's sin, would not be able to hold us accountable since we are BORN with a corrupted will. Being born with a corrupted will beyond our control makes us guiltless, the same reason why people born with a mental illness will be acquited from a court if their mental illness causes them to do crimes. Under Calvinism, God cannot judge anyone guilty because we are all born with a corrupted will beyond our own control. Again, this is the logical conclusion under Calvinism.
"Those He called, He also justified." So by rejecting the Scripture and embracing a view of free will found nowhere in Scripture, your position is found to be unScriptural.

Even until now, you still reject that the Bible does acknowledge that mankind has free will? Well, I cannot help you if you have discarded your reasoning and logic and embraced a theology that goes against the reality and the Word.

It is indeed sad to see how Calvinism deludes people, because everday in this world, we see unbelievers making choices, either for good or for bad. Some unbelievers choose to live an upright life, giving alms and helping the poor through charity organisations. Other unbelievers choose to become murderers and thieves and they are then judged by unbelieving judges who use a law to condemn the guilty. Despite such glaring evidences IN THE REAL WORLD that unbelievers can choose good OR evil, Calvinism states exactly the opposite and creates an illusionised world that we can only contemplate upon. Sad indeed.
Yes, but by your advocacy of an illogical and unreasonable position. Therefore it's false.

No, rather, Calvinism has blinded YOUR reasoning and logic and you cannot even see my reasoning and logic by its blinding effects.
It's what Peter said. It's what Peter meant. That the opposing position has to defy basic grammar is a clear denial of the opposing position. Peter knew how to write Greek. :doh:

I did not say anything about Peter. I said your interpretation is wrong. Look again at my previous post:

In 1 Peter 2, Peter is merely telling us that those people who DISOBEYED the Word were appointed to stumble, BECAUSE they disobeyed, not because God appointed them to stumble.

They're welcome to choose salvation. Their wills will not.

If they are already born with a corrupted will so helplessly corrupted, do you think they can EVER choose salvation? Sadly no, and they are condemned simply because they are not born with a will that allows them to choose salvation. Does that sound fair to you? If you were somehow among the "condemned" and you know you were born with a corrupted will beyond your control, how would YOU feel about your fate? Do you think God is being fair to condemn you when you were born with an ill-fated condition that prevents you from choosing salvation? If you think it is unfair, then you ought to think about how Calvinism has made so many people feel unfairly condemned under its assertions.
What power? The power to defy their own wills? You're the free-will advocate, isn't that pernicious to you? Making people do things against their sinful wills ... oh, the horror!

That is why Calvinism is so scary to me. Yes, under Calvinism, having the power to choose salvation is like having the power to defy people's own will. So now having the power to choose salvation is horrifying because it goes against an evil will? Wow, shocking and scary indeed. Does Calvinism think it is horrifying that people should choose salvation and escape the wrath of God? Fortunately, the real living God wants people to choose salvation and to be blessed by Him, and I thank Him and worship Him for that! Just from what you said here, I will never accept Calvinism, period!

No, free-will advocacy is not Scriptural, and it's not plausible. "No one is good but God alone."

Fallible conclusion here. No one is good does not mean no one can do good.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0