No person can come to Christ by their own freewill !

[A New Dawn]

He did not say that he was not interested in that. He's just saying he'd like to see the whole story. It looks like you're trying to come up with an excuse to not talk about your part of the process. Do you think you played no part in the process? If so, I wonder how you would answer someone if they asked you what they needed to do to be saved? Would you answer them the same way Paul and Silas answered the jailer in Acts 16:30-31?

My response is, and has been on numerous occasions, if you are here seeking you are probably already His because nobody seeks without God making the first move.

 

[Fervent]

Wow. You are seriously deluded.

You keep making these accusations, but don't seem to be able to offer anything by way of rebuttal. What was it you said earlier about God not being happy about how people talk about brothers and sisters? You think false accusations and denial would be approved of?

 

[A New Dawn]

You keep making these accusations, but don't seem to be able to offer anything by way of rebuttal. What was it you said earlier about God not being happy about how people talk about brothers and sisters? You think false accusations and denial would be approved of?

I have already responded to your constant insults by sharing the most sacred story I have and you did nothing but diss it. I’m done with thy you.

 

[Fervent]

I have already responded to your constant insults by sharing the most sacred story I have and you did nothing but diss it. I’m done with thy you.

Criticizing doctrine and its consequences is not "insults", though making false accusations certainly are. And my reproach of your story is because it is missing essential elements of salvation, which you justify by compartmentalizing.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Before I was "in Christ" I made many good choices --that is, they were better options than the others-- but they were not righteous. They were sinful.

How can they be considered "good choices" if they were sinful. That's nonsense.

This even includes the choice to "accept Christ". It is empty and useless, apart from God having already made me alive in Christ, out of being dead in sin (Ephesians 2).

I don't think you know what it means to be dead in sin. It has nothing to do with your ability or inability to repent and believe the gospel. Being dead in sin just means someone is separated from a relationship with God. When we physically die, our body separates from our soul and spirit. So, death is separation. We don't cease to exist when we physically die. When someone is dead in sin, they are not incapable of acknowledging their sins to God.

Jesus said that sinners are sick. Calvinists never take that into consideration. They think being dead in sins means someone is incapable of repenting of their sins without being regenerated, but that's not at all what it means.

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Can a sick person recognize that they are sick and can't heal themselves while asking for the physician to heal them? Of course. So, when Jesus calls sinners (all people are sinners - Romans 3:23) to repentance He fully expects that they are able to answer His call by repenting of their sins and acknowledging that they can't save themselves and need Him to save them instead.

Romans 8 says that when I am not spiritually minded, I am at enmity with God, unable to please God.

But, even a Christian can be not spiritually minded at times (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-3), yet it doesn't prevent them from having faith in Christ. So, the idea that someone has to be spiritually minded, as in has to first be regenerated by the Holy Spirit to repent and have faith, is not true or else there would be no such thing as "babes in Christ" who are not spiritually minded like those Paul rebuked in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. To not be spiritually minded prevents us from growing in our faith and obeying God, but does not prevent us from having faith in Christ. Otherwise, it would be wrong for Paul to have called those believers who were thinking carnally "babes in Christ".

One's repentance and submission is angst at best --not reality-- if it is not done by FAITH, which is a gift of God alone. Not of our strength of will.

These are your words only. This is not taught in scripture anywhere. Read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. Why does Jesus, after the tax collector says "God, be merciful to me a sinner!’" say: "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."? In your view, it is God who humbles people and gives them faith. But, according to Jesus people must humble themselves before God while putting their faith in Christ and asking for mercy. Faith is something that God requires people to do. He doesn't give it to them.

Acts 16:30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

It seems that, to be consistent with your doctrine, you would have to answer the question of what someone must do to be saved like this: "There is nothing you can do, but hope that some day God gives you faith so that you will be saved.".

Why do you make faith an exception to the verse? (The context of the verse does not change my use of it. Besides that, the whole of Scripture is also its context). Show me wrong there.

The verse in question here is this one...

“I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

The context of what Jesus is saying one can't do without Him is to bear fruit. Bearing fruit has to do with doing the good works that God prepares for those who are saved (Ephesians 2:8-10). Being fruit (doing good works) is contrasted there with abiding or remaining in Him. That's where faith comes in. To abide or remain in Christ requires faith in Christ. Without keeping our faith and trust in Him, we can do nothing. He's not going to work through us if we're not trusting in Him. But, in no way, shape or form is Jesus saying there that without Him believing for us or giving us faith we can't believe in Him. No, that's not what He said at all. Instead, He's saying we can't bear fruit by way of serving and obeying Him by doing good works for Him if we are not abiding in Him (trusting in Him).

Every thing we do apart from Christ is corrupt. We are unable to have valid faith, if God has not made us alive.

That is not taught anywhere in scripture. If you're going to make claims, then back them up with scripture. I'm not going to take your word for anything and that goes for everyone else here, too.

That kind of faith is from above, not generated by man's spirit, but by God's Spirit. God's creation, not ours.

Where is this taught in scripture? How can people be expected to humble themselves if we are not even capable of putting our faith in Christ without God basically doing that for us?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Criticizing doctrine and its consequences is not "insults", though making false accusations certainly are. And my reproach of your story is because it is missing essential elements of salvation, which you justify by compartmentalizing.

Right. How strange that he doesn't want to share his part of his salvation experience. Which makes me think he doesn't believe he had any part in it. I guess he thinks of himself as a robot with no ability to reason and make decisions on his own. Which makes me think that if someone asked him what they had to be to be saved, he would say "Nothing, because God does it all. All you can do is hope that God gives you faith some day.". Which does not line up with how Paul and Silas answered that question in Acts 16:30-31.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I have quoted lots of scripture to support my position but there comes a point in time when people come up with all sorts of fancy reasons why they can ignore them that it seems useless to continue doing it.

Jesus, while being compared to a physician, wasn’t a physician, and non-believers aren’t sick. They are dead in their sins. Dead people can’t make decisions, they can’t do anything. That is why it is God who has to make the first move.

You are blatantly contradicting what Jesus said. Why? Jesus Himself said that sinners are sick. Why are you not accepting what He said? Are you uncomfortable having to think about this in a way that you haven't thought about it before? Are you that unteachable?

Mark 2:16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

Jesus very clearly associated the righteous with "those who are well" and sinners with "those who are sick", so why are you denying that obvious truth? Are you that determined to cling to your doctrine that you are willing to even deny what Jesus clearly said?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Gotta love watching two people who know absolutely nothing about Calvinism buddying up and high-fiving each other over their totally wrong synopses.

If we supposedly know nothing about Calvinism then why didn't you bother to correct what we supposedly got wrong about it? What have I said about Calvinism that isn't true about it?

 

[Fervent]

Right. How strange that he doesn't want to share his part of his salvation experience. Which makes me think he doesn't believe he had any part in it. I guess he thinks of himself as a robot with no ability to reason and make decisions on his own. Which makes me think that if someone asked him what they had to be to be saved, he would say "Nothing, because God does it all. All you can do is hope that God gives you faith some day.". Which does not line up with how Paul and Silas answered that question in Acts 16:30-31.

Yep, or as I pointed out to her did Jesus seem to believe as much given his interaction with the rich young ruler. Certainly seems the ruler made the decision, not Jesus.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

My response is, and has been on numerous occasions, if you are here seeking you are probably already His because nobody seeks without God making the first move.

There is no indication whatsoever in Acts 16 that the jailer was already His before he asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved. And Paul and Silas made it clear that what they said he had to do was true for everyone in his household as well. So, are you going to claim that everyone in the jailer's household was already His as well?

 

[bling]

Because they walked and talked with God! We don’t. We live in rebellion to God. Sin is all around us. We can only make choices that align with our fallen state because we have a fallen nature. Until our hearts are turned BY GOD and ow have a redeemed nature and we are given the gift of the Holy Spirit to help us we cannot freely choose ANYTHING having to do with God. That is the whole point of John 6 and Romans 3.

In the prodigal son parable, Jesus specifically says, “When he came to his senses…”, it does not say: “When God brought him to his senses”.

I agree with you, “the unbeliever sinner cannot do anything worthy, noble, righteous, or holy, but he can of his own free will choose between different sins to do, one being to selfishly accept from his hated enemy charity as charity.

Verses supporting free will

Gen. 1-3 Did Adam and Eve have free will?

Exodus 35:29 “All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord freewill offerings for all the work the Lord through Moses had commanded them to do.” Are these truly free will offerings?

Jonah 3: 10 “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.” Did the people of Nineveh change what God said he would do?

How is this not saying that God’s actions are contingent on the choices of the people?

"You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40). Note that Jesus does not say, "you cannot come", which the Greek does not say here, but, "you refuse to come", in order that you may have eternal life. It was their own rejection of Jesus and the Gospel, that would damn their souls, and not because they were "unable" to make the "choice" themselves.

Christ is God here on earth. The “whomsoever” does not mean only the elect, but lots of people, who then made the choice to accept or reject Christ. "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." (John 5:39-40)

To say: “Christ only reveals Himself to those who God have chosen to accept Him”, means God is guilty of not helping others to accept Christ.

John 15: 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

If they have no free will, they have an excellent excuse for sinning?

There are all the “whosoever” verses making it contingent.
What specific verses in John and ro. 3 are you using and explain their meaning.

 

[A New Dawn]

There is no indication whatsoever in Acts 16 that the jailer was already His before he asked Paul and Silas what he had to do to be saved. And Paul and Silas made it clear that what they said he had to do was true for everyone in his household as well. So, are you going to claim that everyone in the jailer's household was already His as well?

I do not believe that family members of saved persons are saved. Not then, not now. They might, by the faith of the saved, and the prayers they pray, and the gospel they share, have a hope for salvation, but they aren’t saved until God steps in for them personally.

 

[bling]

-
​

No an unbeliever can not repent and return to the family of God, because an unbeliever is not a son (or daughter) and has never been in the family of God.

If the unbeliever believes in Jesus and becomes a child of God (son or daughter) and then they go back into the world.
Then yes they can repent and be welcomed back into fellowship in the family of God, but they are not being welcome back as a person who has never been a son or daughter (unbeliever), but they are being welcomed back into the family as a lost son or daughter

I agree with you here: “the unbeliever sinner cannot do anything worthy, noble, righteous, or holy, but he can of his own free will choose between different sins to do, one being to selfishly accept from his hated enemy charity as charity."
This brings up the understanding of the Doctrine of "Original Sin". My understanding and lots of other people understand the same way: Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin and by eating the fruit past down to mature adults the "Knowledge" of "Good and Evil" in our conscience. This provides every mature adult with tons of ways to sin and thus all will eventually sin. But this does not mean our "nature" changed fro the nature Adam and Eve had, since with the nature they had from the beginning and with only one way to sin they sinned, so we, as adults, with tons of ways to sin will sin.
A newborn baby is not hell bound since they have not sinned, they are in a safe condition and not needing to be saved, so we all start out as children of God, as Paul described us all as being God's offspring.

 

[A New Dawn]

Criticizing doctrine and its consequences is not "insults", though making false accusations certainly are. And my reproach of your story is because it is missing essential elements of salvation, which you justify by compartmentalizing.

This is my final response to you. It is not ME who compartmentalizes the different tenses of salvation, it is God. According to Paul in Ephesians 2, salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of yourself so that no man may boast, this is what justification is. Paul then goes on to man’s response to salvation, sanctification. We are created unto good works in Christ Jesus.

I don’t know why y’all have the need to be right in there with God saving yourself. Let me remind you what Romans 11 says about the nature of grace. But if it is of grace it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. So if your part is actually part of the saving part, then you aren’t saved by grace, but by works. But if your part is the response part, then you are saved by grace and your works are part of your sanctification.

I’d think hard about whether you saved yourself because you had to be part of it, or if God saved you and you responded with the appropriate works.

NOT MY WORDS, NOT MY COMPARTMENTALIZATION.

 

[d taylor]

I agree with you here: “the unbeliever sinner cannot do anything worthy, noble, righteous, or holy, but he can of his own free will choose between different sins to do, one being to selfishly accept from his hated enemy charity as charity."
This brings up the understanding of the Doctrine of "Original Sin". My understanding and lots of other people understand the same way: Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin and by eating the fruit past down to mature adults the "Knowledge" of "Good and Evil" in our conscience. This provides every mature adult with tons of ways to sin and thus all will eventually sin. But this does not mean our "nature" changed fro the nature Adam and Eve had, since with the nature they had from the beginning and with only one way to sin they sinned, so we, as adults, with tons of ways to sin will sin.
A newborn baby is not hell bound since they have not sinned, they are in a safe condition and not needing to be saved, so we all start out as children of God, as Paul described us all as being God's offspring.

-
​

A baby or even a young person will not go to hell even though they have not believed in Jesus for Eternal Life.
Because Jesus has taken away all sin, believers and unbelievers. So sin can not keep a person from Eternal Life.

Just look at how gracious God was to the Hebrew children 19 and below. So that could very well be an indicator of the age God begins holding people accountable for what they believe and do not believe.

Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not wholly followed Me, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the Lord.’ So the Lord’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

 

[bling]

I can only assume you mean sinner to mean an unredeemed non-believer. Correct me if I am wrong, but going forward on that assumption …..

OK

If a sinner could, for purely selfish reasons, humble himself to accept undeserved charity while hating the charity giver (wow, that scenario is so far out there I’m having trouble envisioning it)

I would say 90+% of all soldiers who surrender to their hated enemy, still hate them when the enemy hands them their first meal as Prisoners of war, but they eat the food. It is only after God demonstrates His Love by showering us with gifts to, we start liking Him.

then he would be, in essence saving himself, or at the very least making himself saveable. But his motivation in the matter (“for purely selfish reasons” (your stipulation)) would make salvation impossible. It is also heretical. You cannot save yourself under any circumstances. That was the whole purpose of the law. To prove that you can’t save yourself.

The soldier of satan who just surrenders to his enemy has done nothing deserving of anything good, but should get a torturous death for previous war crimes. The soldiers disrespectful, rebellious disobedience in his past (war crimes) is only deserving of a torturous death, even though he surrendered and that has happened many times in earthly civilizations.

 

[Fervent]

This is my final response to you. It is not ME who compartmentalizes the different tenses of salvation, it is God. According to Paul in Ephesians 2, salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of yourself so that no man may boast, this is what justification is. Paul then goes on to man’s response to salvation, sanctification. We are created unto good works in Christ Jesus.

Once again you are engaged in proof texting and inserting doctrine where it doesn't belong., as there is no reason for assuming that saved is justification. That's just something you read into it, and sanctification isn't "man's response to salvation" it is part and partial to salvation as the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer.

I don’t know why y’all have the need to be right in there with God saving yourself. Let me remind you what Romans 11 says. But if it is of grace it is no longer of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. So if your part is actually part of the saving part, then you aren’t saved by grace, but by works. But if your part is the response part, then you aren’t saved by grace and your works are part of your sanctification.

There you go with your false accusations, simply because we don't play along with your making believe puppet game doesn't mean we're "saving (y)ourself". Salvation is the work of God, but surrender to the gospel is only an act of personal salvation in an extremely distorted view of things.

I’d think hard about whether you saved yourself because you had to be part of it, or if God saved you and you responded with the appropriate works.

No one is talking about works, so you're just presenting a strawman. I suppose at least you're presenting some lame attempt at rebuttal rather than just making false denials.

NOT MY WORDS, NOT MY COMPARTMENTALIZATION.

Sure, not your compartmentalization. It's the compartmentalization of the innovaters from the 16th century. But repeating the false doctrine is still you engaging in compartmentalization.

 

[bling]

-
​

A baby or even a young person will not go to hell even though they have not believed in Jesus for Eternal Life.
Because Jesus has taken away all sin, believers and unbelievers. So sin can not keep a person from Eternal Life.

Just look at how gracious God was to the Hebrew children 19 and below. So that could very well be an indicator of the age God begins holding people accountable for what they believe and do not believe.

Surely none of the men who came up from Egypt, from twenty years old and above, shall see the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because they have not wholly followed Me, except Caleb the son of Jephunneh, the Kenizzite, and Joshua the son of Nun, for they have wholly followed the Lord.’ So the Lord’s anger was aroused against Israel, and He made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.

Do you believe a baby sinned by being born or is the baby sinless?

 

[Fervent]

I agree with you here: “the unbeliever sinner cannot do anything worthy, noble, righteous, or holy, but he can of his own free will choose between different sins to do, one being to selfishly accept from his hated enemy charity as charity."
This brings up the understanding of the Doctrine of "Original Sin". My understanding and lots of other people understand the same way: Adam and Eve were the first humans to sin and by eating the fruit past down to mature adults the "Knowledge" of "Good and Evil" in our conscience. This provides every mature adult with tons of ways to sin and thus all will eventually sin. But this does not mean our "nature" changed fro the nature Adam and Eve had, since with the nature they had from the beginning and with only one way to sin they sinned, so we, as adults, with tons of ways to sin will sin.
A newborn baby is not hell bound since they have not sinned, they are in a safe condition and not needing to be saved, so we all start out as children of God, as Paul described us all as being God's offspring.

You've identified the achille's heel in Reformed theology, "Original Sin"...a misunderstanding built on Augustine's inability to read the Greek and a mistranslation in the Vulgate alongside Augustine reasoning about the justification for baptizing infants. Which was then doubled down on by Luther and Calvin in their doctrine of total depravity/inability.

 

[bling]

@bling

Well how was he alive again when he was dead ?

The father made the young son alive, by showering him with totally undeserved gifts. If like many a father would do for a son who did what the young son did, lots of fathers would have disowned such a son, kicked him out and not even talked to him, which is what the young son deserved and would have left the son in a dead state.