John 3:14-16 teaches that Christ died for everyone

[FreeGrace2]

Well, if grace proceeds regeneration, then there's nothing wrong with using terms. It's just a way of describing things. There's nothing wrong with that.

Of course grace precedes regeneration. It always precedes everything. As I've shown previously.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually YOU are being dishonest here. You have been told time and time again that Calvinists believe that man has the ability to believe, but if they are unregenerate they have no desire, or inclination to believe the Gospel and therefore don't, and won't.

Here is what I posted:

This is totally dishonest. Calvinism believes that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. It can't be an issue of what they choose, but rather who God chooses. Why aren't you admitting that, and speaking about something that isn't even possible in your own theology?

Could you please explain what is incorrect in what I posted here? Nothing you responded with was relevant to what I posted. Please show me in what I posted the error that you accuse me of.

THAT is Calvinist theology, FG2. What you are claiming that Calvinists believe is a falsehood, and to continue to claim it, after having been repeatedly corrected shows that you would rather believe a lie than the Truth.

Again, please show me from my post above what is incorrect, then. Everything I stated in that quote was told to me by Calvinists. If I'm wrong, then I've been given wrong information by Calvinists.

Because it is logically the Truth!

If true, why can't you give me a verse that SAYS that regeneration precedes faith? I believe what the Bible SAYS. Show me where the Bible SAYS that regeneration precedes faith.

Those who ARE (present tense) believing HAVE BEEN (past tense) born again. Chronologically and logically, born again happened before the believing, and the believing was a result of being born again.

According to Greek grammar rules, a present tense participle (the believing ones) occur at the same time as the action of the main verb (born again). So, the intial believing occurred at the same time as being born again. And hammster agreed that they occur simultaneously.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Does FreeGrace2 think the non-elect have the ability to believe or something?

I stated the Calvinist position, that the non-elect cannot believe because they were not chosen to. Is that incorrect?

This issue is very nuanced and is never productive when the anti-reformed person refuses to see what we're saying.

No, the issue is not at all nuanced. The Bible states very clearly why God chooses some for salvation. 1 Cor 1:21 tells us.

What it comes down to is unregenerate man does not have the ability to desire God because he is a slave to sin through and through.

All are born dead in sin. And all are born unregenerate. So where is the verse that tells us that God regenerates people so they can believe?

Unregenerate man's entire being is infected by sin, which includes the desires of his heart. That is why man is unable to believe, because he is unable to desire to believe.

Then he has no freedom to believe, since he has no ability to believe. But the whole thrust of the Bible is to get people to believe, so your theology goes dead against the Bible's whole thrust. Doesn't that bother you? Paul tried to persuade men to believe the gospel. He didn't have any power to regenerate anyone. So why would he bother trying to persuade people if it all came down to God having to regenerate people to get them to believe?

It's a moral inability, not a natural inability.

Please show me a verse that SAYS that.

Any desire for God is a result of God's drawing, effectual grace, and this is the very thing our synergist brothers are arguing against.

I'm not interested in your brother's arguments. God already HAS drawn "all men" (Jn 12:32) because God created mankind to seek Him (Acts 17:26-27) and He has revealed His divine power to everyone (Rom 1:19-20) so that no one has an excuse for not honoring Him as God and being thankful.

 

[guuila]

I stated the Calvinist position, that the non-elect cannot believe because they were not chosen to. Is that incorrect?

If God, in his perfect omniscience, knows Bob will never believe, and God created Bob anyway 30 years ago, does Bob have the ability to believe if you share the Gospel with him today?

 

[Hammster]

If God, in his perfect omniscience, knows Bob will never believe, and God created Bob anyway 30 years ago, does Bob have the ability to believe if you share the Gospel with him today?

I would say yes. But not the willingness.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If God, in his perfect omniscience, knows Bob will never believe, and God created Bob anyway 30 years ago, does Bob have the ability to believe if you share the Gospel with him today?

Sorry, you ignored my question. Here it is again:

I stated the Calvinist position, that the non-elect cannot believe because they were not chosen to. Is that incorrect?

Please answer, if you have an answer. If not, please just say so. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I would say yes. But not the willingness.

So there's no choice, then. Without a willingness, there is no option.

 

[guuila]

Sorry, you ignored my question. Here it is again:

Please answer, if you have an answer. If not, please just say so. Thanks.

I did answer. I said they can't believe because they don't have the desire to. That desire comes as a gift from God. If God had chosen to give them that gift, they would believe, but as anyone who understands grace knows, God is under no obligation to give to someone what was never owed in the first place.

 

[crimsonleaf]

No, the issue is not at all nuanced. The Bible states very clearly why God chooses some for salvation. 1 Cor 1:21 tells us.

Nope. That's a connection you've made. Yes, believers are saved. Unfortunately the verse doesn't say that belief is the cause of their salvation.

All are born dead in sin. And all are born unregenerate. So where is the verse that tells us that God regenerates people so they can believe?

If all are dead in sin, and God draws all men without exception, can you tell me the effects of being dead in sin, and can you point to a single individual who suffered those effects?

Or do you think that being dead in sin is countermanded at birth by God's universal call?

Forgive me if you've answered this, but I can't remember an answer.

 

[Hammster]

So there's no choice, then. Without a willingness, there is no option.

Why not? I hate liver. If my wife makes liver, I have a choice whether or not to eat it. But I'm not willing.

 

[nobdysfool]

Here is what I posted:

This is totally dishonest. Calvinism believes that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. It can't be an issue of what they choose, but rather who God chooses. Why aren't you admitting that, and speaking about something that isn't even possible in your own theology?

Could you please explain what is incorrect in what I posted here? Nothing you responded with was relevant to what I posted. Please show me in what I posted the error that you accuse me of.

You claim that Calvinists believe that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. That is not what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that unless God has chosen them they WILL NOT believe.

1Co 1:18 KJV For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
​

1Co 2:14 KJV But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

​

As for whether it's what the man chooses or what God chooses, that is a deflection. Yes, God has already chosen those who will be saved. He did not reveal the basis of that choice made by Him. But man is responsible, precisely because he has the ability to choose, which no Calvinist denies (and if they do it is because they do not understand Calvinism correctly), and he will be held accountable for his choices. Why? Because there is enough evidence around him to demonstrate that there is a God, and that He should be sought out and worshiped. But, Man has shot himself in the foot so to speak, because of sin. God did not cause man to sin, man freely chose to, and we all suffer the ongoing consequences of that bad choice. It is those consequences that interfere with mans ability to choose freely.

Again, please show me from my post above what is incorrect, then. Everything I stated in that quote was told to me by Calvinists. If I'm wrong, then I've been given wrong information by Calvinists.

I just did, and yes, you were given wrong information, or it could be that you didn't understand what you were given, and have been jumping to wrong conclusions, as you are so quick to point out with regard to how we have perceived what you've been saying is your belief. At least you have finally allowed for the fact that you could have been given wrong info. That's a step.

If true, why can't you give me a verse that SAYS that regeneration precedes faith? I believe what the Bible SAYS. Show me where the Bible SAYS that regeneration precedes faith.

We have, but you apparently don't like the wording. Maybe we should demand a verse that states in so many words that God is a Triune Being, composed of Father Son, and Holy Spirit. But there is no verse which says that, but we all believe it to be true.

The problem here is in demanding something that God has not chosen to state so clearly. It's there, in the Bible, if you open your eyes and take off the blinders and set aside your habitual way of looking at things. There is a depth to God's Word that is astounding, but you can't see it unless and until you are willing to allow the Holy Spirit to open your eyes and take you into the deep things hidden in the Scriptures.

According to Greek grammar rules, a present tense participle (the believing ones) occur at the same time as the action of the main verb (born again). So, the intial believing occurred at the same time as being born again. And hammster agreed that they occur simultaneously.

If you want to bring out the "Greek scholar" angle, we can ask someone we know whose credentials are impeccable to parse the Greek, and you will find that we are correct in our understanding.

We have explained to you several times that chronologically, temporally, the New Birth and Faith are simultaneous, or so very nearly so that it makes no real difference. But we are speaking logically. A logical progression of events helps to identify just what happens. Why don't you give me a logical breakdown of how an Hydrogen bomb explosion looks. Not temporally, or chronologically, but logically. What happens first? What happens next? and so on. That's the detail we're speaking of, and why we say that logically, regeneration comes before faith. We are speaking of the logical order of events, which are not time-dependent.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Then he has no freedom to believe, since he has no ability to believe. But the whole thrust of the Bible is to get people to believe, so your theology goes dead against the Bible's whole thrust.

No! Paul said that one plants, another waters, but GOD gives the increase.

Paul tried to persuade men to believe the gospel. He didn't have any power to regenerate anyone. So why would he bother trying to persuade people if it all came down to God having to regenerate people to get them to believe?

You are right that Paul had no power to regenerate. But he had no power to persuade sinners to believe either. That also is the Holy Spirit's work. So your argument fails.

And don't even think about using Paul's words "we persuade men" as a proof text. Paul was NOT saying that the apostolic company persuaded the unsaved to believe. He was speaking to Christians regarding Christ's displeasure toward the bad choices they make "in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:9-11).

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did answer. I said they can't believe because they don't have the desire to. That desire comes as a gift from God.

Sure. They weren't chosen. The reason they don't have the desire, right.

If God had chosen to give them that gift, they would believe, but as anyone who understands grace knows, God is under no obligation to give to someone what was never owed in the first place.

I never argued about obligation, so I don't know why you would bring it up.

The point of Calvinism is that if you haven't been chosen, then you can't go to heaven, you can't believe. And that choosing occurred before the world began, so why bother? Everything's already been chosen.

What kind of theology is that? Not Biblical, for sure.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Nope. That's a connection you've made. Yes, believers are saved. Unfortunately the verse doesn't say that belief is the cause of their salvation.

You have misunderstood me. I never said their faith was the cause of their salvation. I SAID God chose to save those who believe. Do you see the difference?

If all are dead in sin, and God draws all men without exception, can you tell me the effects of being dead in sin, and can you point to a single individual who suffered those effects?

I can point to everyone, because everyone was born dead in sin. Are you arguing against everyone being born dead in sin? Jesus Himself said that He would draw all men to Himself.

Or do you think that being dead in sin is countermanded at birth by God's universal call?

No, I don't think that at all. Everyone is dead in sin until God regenerates those who believe.

Forgive me if you've answered this, but I can't remember an answer.

You are forgiven.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Why not? I hate liver. If my wife makes liver, I have a choice whether or not to eat it. But I'm not willing.

I really don't understand why you can't see that if you aren't willing, there is no real choice in the matter. Why would anyone choose what they hate?

Seems you only want to dodge the reality that in your theology, there really are no choices at all. Except what God chooses.

 

[Hammster]

Sure. They weren't chosen. The reason they don't have the desire, right.


I never argued about obligation, so I don't know why you would bring it up.

The point of Calvinism is that if you haven't been chosen, then you can't go to heaven, you can't believe. And that choosing occurred before the world began, so why bother? Everything's already been chosen.

What kind of theology is that? Not Biblical, for sure.

Not "can't believe". "Won't" believe.

 

[Hammster]

I really don't understand why you can't see that if you aren't willing, there is no real choice in the matter. Why would anyone choose what they hate?

Seems you only want to dodge the reality that in your theology, there really are no choices at all. Except what God chooses.

No one would choose what they hate. I'm glad you finally are getting it.

 

[Jack Terrence]

Sure. They weren't chosen. The reason they don't have the desire, right.

Wrong! The reason they don't have the desire is because they were born in sin.

Learn the basics.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You claim that Calvinists believe that unless one is chosen, they CANNOT believe. That is not what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches that unless God has chosen them they WILL NOT believe.

There is no difference whatsoever in what I said and what you just said. LOL

[/INDENT]As for whether it's what the man chooses or what God chooses, that is a deflection.

I've not brought up anything what man chooses. I've been focused on what Calvinism teaches, that God does all the choosing.

Yes, God has already chosen those who will be saved.

Yes, that was my point, which you seemed to disagree with. See your opening statement in this post.

He did not reveal the basis of that choice made by Him.

Yes, He did. 1 Cor 1:21 says He is well pleased (He chooses what pleases Him) to save those who believe.

But man is responsible, precisely because he has the ability to choose, which no Calvinist denies (and if they do it is because they do not understand Calvinism correctly), and he will be held accountable for his choices. Why? Because there is enough evidence around him to demonstrate that there is a God, and that He should be sought out and worshiped.

You have really missed the whole point. From your opening statement in this post, you said: "Calvinism teaches that unless God has chosen them they WILL NOT believe." So HOW can man be held responsible SINCE God does the choosing? You have not answered THAT question. I don't believe you CAN.

But, Man has shot himself in the foot so to speak, because of sin.

No, God shot him in the foot, so to speak, because He didn't choose them. Or maybe in the head. Yeah, that sounds much better.

God did not cause man to sin, man freely chose to, and we all suffer the ongoing consequences of that bad choice. It is those consequences that interfere with mans ability to choose freely.

I believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, so to speak. You and others have said that unregenerate man can only choose bad. So, it isn't really a choice at all, since there's no other options for him to choose from.

I said this:

Again, please show me from my post above what is incorrect, then. Everything I stated in that quote was told to me by Calvinists. If I'm wrong, then I've been given wrong information by Calvinists.

And you responded with this:
"I just did, and yes, you were given wrong information, or it could be that you didn't understand what you were given, and have been jumping to wrong conclusions, as you are so quick to point out with regard to how we have perceived what you've been saying is your belief. At least you have finally allowed for the fact that you could have been given wrong info. That's a step.[/QUOTE]
Well, the only problem is that ALL the information I've been given on this forum has been from Calvinists. So I suggest you have a pow wow or something with them and figure out who's passing out such bad information.

We have, but you apparently don't like the wording.

This is what I said:

If true, why can't you give me a verse that SAYS that regeneration precedes faith? I believe what the Bible SAYS. Show me where the Bible SAYS that regeneration precedes faith.

I've given plenty of opportunity to find ANY verse that indicates what you claim is true. I haven't demanded any specific wording. But none of the verses you or others have given say, indicate, or suggest that regeneration precedes faith. I have no idea why you think they do, because none of them do.

Maybe we should demand a verse that states in so many words that God is a Triune Being, composed of Father Son, and Holy Spirit. But there is no verse which says that, but we all believe it to be true.

That's pretty easy to prove from Scripture. I'm surprised that you aren't aware of the verse. 2 Cor 13:14

The problem here is in demanding something that God has not chosen to state so clearly.

The problem is that there are no verses at all that indicate what you claim.

It's there, in the Bible, if you open your eyes and take off the blinders and set aside your habitual way of looking at things.

I've looked very closely and find verses that actually SAY the opposite of what you claim. Which is why I post here.

There is a depth to God's Word that is astounding, but you can't see it unless and until you are willing to allow the Holy Spirit to open your eyes and take you into the deep things hidden in the Scriptures.

You don't have to be condescending. I'd suggest the same thing to you.

If you want to bring out the "Greek scholar" angle, we can ask someone we know whose credentials are impeccable to parse the Greek, and you will find that we are correct in our understanding.

I think you may be quite naive. There are scholars with impeccable credentials that disagree strongly with Calvinism, so your claim is moot.

We have explained to you several times that chronologically, temporally, the New Birth and Faith are simultaneous, or so very nearly so that it makes no real difference. But we are speaking logically. A logical progression of events helps to identify just what happens.

Someone on this forum has been arguing that Cornelius was regenerated WAY before Peter came to him. Do you believe that?

Why don't you give me a logical breakdown of how an Hydrogen bomb explosion looks. Not temporally, or chronologically, but logically. What happens first? What happens next? and so on.

Seriously? What on earth for? I'm not interested in bombs, but the Bible. If you are interested in bombs, you could google it.

That's the detail we're speaking of, and why we say that logically, regeneration comes before faith. We are speaking of the logical order of events, which are not time-dependent.

But you just can't prove it from Scripture. Which is my point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not "can't believe". "Won't" believe.

Right. No "real choice" is unwilling. Clearly.