Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

tdidymas · Mar 10, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Slick dodge.

You're trying to derail the conversation with an irrelevant question.

I said:
" Of course there is a distinction. Heb 4:12 says so clearly.

You really do fail to understand what I post. I've never suggested that they are the same. Why in the world would you conclude that from my posts?"

Why do you equate soul and spirit with fleshly and spiritual understanding?

I conclude that you don't understand either the soul or spirit. Please explain the difference between them. Heb 4:12 makes clear they ARE different.

Sounds to me like you're changing your tune, because you were very adamant that atheists could understand the gospel, and now you say soul and spirit are different.

The soul is the heart of man, and it is fleshly by nature, proven by Jer. 17:9 and Rom. 3:10-18.
The spirit is the realm of God, in which He either directs the spirit of man (in the case of born again Christians), or doesn't (in the case of the reprobate, who are dead in sin).

Therefore, the soul of man (his fleshly nature) may be able to reason things out by his intellect, but may have no connection to God, and therefore doesn't know Him. In order for man to have spiritual understanding of God, he must have a personal revelation (or illumination) of God and of the nature of his relationship with Him. If God is in a person willing and doing His purpose (Phil. 2:13), that person is being led by the Holy Spirit, and thus is a child of God (Rom. 8:14).

That's part of the "change of mind" that 'repents' includes. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. It doesn't require regeneration.[/quote]
This is where our paths diverge. God must change the disposition of a person's heart before that person can repent in the NT sense.

Please explain what "predestination" is.

The sovereign determination and foreknowledge of God, in which He sovereignly chose specific people to bring into eternal communion with Himself. This is the meaning in context of Eph. 1 and Rom. 8.

I can prove from Scripture that NONE of the 5 points are biblical. btw, none of them even include salvation. Well, the "U" does, but it's totally in error. Election isn't about being chosen for salvation. It's all about service. Easily provable.

This is where our paths diverge.

lol. You sure thought so.

And still do.

Show me where "it" refers to the simple gospel message of salvation.

And here again do you confuse fleshly and spiritual understanding. Paul is talking about spiritual understanding in this passage. But you refuse to acknowledge it. If a 5-year-old hears the gospel and obeys, they have understanding. If a college professor can parrot the gospel message, but doesn't obey it, he doesn't understand it. Period.

I know it. From the context.
Total confusion. All humans are born sinners, period. We sin because we are sinners. And gettint saved doesn't remove the fact that we will still sin if you thought so.

Yet more misunderstanding. I think you're doing it deliberately.

I recommend that you study Paul more carefully.

1 Tim 1-
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Twice Paul referred to himself as the worst of sinners.

He is referring to the time prior to his conversion, and not to his present condition.

Could you explain what you think this verse says?

James is writing to those in the church who might not be born again, and to those in the church who through their fleshly minds have been persuaded to stray from the truth.

I do see your own confusion. And I do understand what Paul said.

I think I'm done with this conversation at this point.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 11, 2020

tdidymas said:
You're trying to derail the conversation with an irrelevant question.

No I'm not. Just asking questions that some just don't want to have to answer.

Sounds to me like you're changing your tune, because you were very adamant that atheists could understand the gospel, and now you say soul and spirit are different.

No, I haven't changed anything. I remain consistent. Atheists don't have a human spirit. Only believers have. Via regeneration and the new birth.

Atheists can understand the gospel and still reject it. I've seen it. Articles in Time and Newsweek and other magazines written by both atheists and those who just don't accept Christianity (not atheists) who can articulate the gospel accurately while not accepting it as truth.

The soul is the heart of man, and it is fleshly by nature, proven by Jer. 17:9 and Rom. 3:10-18.

Right. And your point?

The spirit is the realm of God, in which He either directs the spirit of man (in the case of born again Christians), or doesn't (in the case of the reprobate, who are dead in sin).

Well, this is a bit confused. The spirit of believers is directly ONLY WHEN the believer isn't out of fellowship by failing to confess their sins (1 John 1:9), and isn't grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand this?

Therefore, the soul of man (his fleshly nature) may be able to reason things out by his intellect, but may have no connection to God, and therefore doesn't know Him.

This is true, I agree. But that doesn't preclude understanding what God promises.

Just look at Eden. After they sinned, they hid when the Lord appeared. Because their human spirits had "died on that day", just as God had warned them. But when the Lord talked with them, they WERE ABLE to respond to Him.

So, explain that, since you believe that spiritually dead people cannot respond to God.

In order for man to have spiritual understanding of God, he must have a personal revelation (or illumination) of God and of the nature of his relationship with Him.

God has already done that. Evidence is Rom 1:19,20. And why man has no excuse.

If God is in a person willing and doing His purpose (Phil. 2:13), that person is being led by the Holy Spirit, and thus is a child of God (Rom. 8:14).

That's NOT how to become a child of God. Scripture tells us exactly how.

John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Gal 3:26 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

The sovereign determination and foreknowledge of God, in which He sovereignly chose specific people to bring into eternal communion with Himself. This is the meaning in context of Eph. 1 and Rom. 8.

No verse says this and neither Eph 1 or Rom 8 teaches it either.

This is where our paths diverge.

They certainly do. It seems you don't want my evidence.

And here again do you confuse fleshly and spiritual understanding.

You only think so.

Paul is talking about spiritual understanding in this passage. But you refuse to acknowledge it.

But you fail to understand that the gospel is for unbelievers, so it isn't "spiritual understanding". That belongs to advanced doctrines for believers.

If a 5-year-old hears the gospel and obeys, they have understanding. If a college professor can parrot the gospel message, but doesn't obey it, he doesn't understand it. Period.

Why do you try to dismiss this by using the perjorative word "parrot" as if the professor can't understand the message?

I've already proven that atheists can understand the gospel. Maybe you haven't ever read Time, Newsweek or other national magazines, but I have. And over the years, there have been a number of articles about religion, where the author admits they aren't Christian, but clearly stated the gospel message.

So don't dismiss this with your "parroting" nonsense.

In politics, can you understand both sides of the argument? Hopefully, you are able. That's how people make decisions. They reject one side and accept the other side.

So, one doesn't have to believe something in order to understand it, which it seems you think must be true.

I said:
"All humans are born sinners, period. We sin because we are sinners. And gettint saved doesn't remove the fact that we will still sin if you thought so."

Yet more misunderstanding. I think you're doing it deliberately.

You really don't believe this?? Seriously??

I said:
"I recommend that you study Paul more carefully.

1 Tim 1-
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Twice Paul referred to himself as the worst of sinners."

He is referring to the time prior to his conversion, and not to his present condition.

Are you missing the PRESENT TENSE on purpose, or just accidently??

James is writing to those in the church who might not be born again, and to those in the church who through their fleshly minds have been persuaded to stray from the truth.

Didn't you read the beginning of his epistle??

Well, let's do, and see who his target audience was.

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, (common terms for fellow believers) whenever you face trials of many kinds,
3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.
6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
9 Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position.

All of the red words clearly indicate that James was writing to Jewish believers. Just check out what scholars all say about to whom James was writing.

tdidymas · Mar 11, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
No I'm not. Just asking questions that some just don't want to have to answer.

No, I haven't changed anything. I remain consistent. Atheists don't have a human spirit. Only believers have. Via regeneration and the new birth.

Atheists can understand the gospel and still reject it. I've seen it. Articles in Time and Newsweek and other magazines written by both atheists and those who just don't accept Christianity (not atheists) who can articulate the gospel accurately while not accepting it as truth.

Right. And your point?

Well, this is a bit confused. The spirit of believers is directly ONLY WHEN the believer isn't out of fellowship by failing to confess their sins (1 John 1:9), and isn't grieving (Eph 4:30) or quenching (1 Thess 5:19) the Holy Spirit.

Do you understand this?

This is true, I agree. But that doesn't preclude understanding what God promises.

Just look at Eden. After they sinned, they hid when the Lord appeared. Because their human spirits had "died on that day", just as God had warned them. But when the Lord talked with them, they WERE ABLE to respond to Him.

So, explain that, since you believe that spiritually dead people cannot respond to God.

God has already done that. Evidence is Rom 1:19,20. And why man has no excuse.

That's NOT how to become a child of God. Scripture tells us exactly how.

John 1:12 - Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

Gal 3:26 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

No verse says this and neither Eph 1 or Rom 8 teaches it either.

They certainly do. It seems you don't want my evidence.

You only think so.

But you fail to understand that the gospel is for unbelievers, so it isn't "spiritual understanding". That belongs to advanced doctrines for believers.

Why do you try to dismiss this by using the perjorative word "parrot" as if the professor can't understand the message?

I've already proven that atheists can understand the gospel. Maybe you haven't ever read Time, Newsweek or other national magazines, but I have. And over the years, there have been a number of articles about religion, where the author admits they aren't Christian, but clearly stated the gospel message.

So don't dismiss this with your "parroting" nonsense.

In politics, can you understand both sides of the argument? Hopefully, you are able. That's how people make decisions. They reject one side and accept the other side.

So, one doesn't have to believe something in order to understand it, which it seems you think must be true.

I said:
"All humans are born sinners, period. We sin because we are sinners. And gettint saved doesn't remove the fact that we will still sin if you thought so."

You really don't believe this?? Seriously??

I said:
"I recommend that you study Paul more carefully.

1 Tim 1-
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Twice Paul referred to himself as the worst of sinners."

Are you missing the PRESENT TENSE on purpose, or just accidently??

Didn't you read the beginning of his epistle??

Well, let's do, and see who his target audience was.

1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, (common terms for fellow believers) whenever you face trials of many kinds,
3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.
4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you.
6 But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind.
7 That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord.
8 Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.
9 Believers in humble circumstances ought to take pride in their high position.

All of the red words clearly indicate that James was writing to Jewish believers. Just check out what scholars all say about to whom James was writing.

We're walking parallel paths and will never meet. I'll let you have the last word. Goodbye and God bless.
TD

ChristosKurios · Mar 13, 2020

NO

God doesn't need my puny permission. Besides, even if I were given the choice, I would've never chosen Him. Scripture clearly teaches that we can not please God in our natural state and believing Him I'd say is pleasing Him. Unless He first chose me and changed the disposition of my heart I would have never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.

bling · Mar 13, 2020

ChristosKurios said:
NO

God doesn't need my puny permission. Besides, even if I were given the choice, I would've never chosen Him. Scripture clearly teaches that we can not please God in our natural state and believing Him I'd say is pleasing Him. Unless He first chose me and changed the disposition of my heart I would have never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.

Why you and not everyone else?

ChristosKurios · Mar 13, 2020

bling said:
Why you and not everyone else?

Hi Bling, do you mean why He chose me? I have no idea. He chose to show me mercy, while choosing to show justice to others. In no case, was there any injustice committed by God.

FreeGrace2 · Mar 13, 2020

ChristosKurios said:
Unless He first chose me and changed the disposition of my heart I would have never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior.

What did God choose you for?

bling · Mar 14, 2020

ChristosKurios said:
Hi Bling, do you mean why He chose me? I have no idea. He chose to show me mercy, while choosing to show justice to others. In no case, was there any injustice committed by God.

First off: God is totally "Just" with everyone, that is part of His nature and one part does not keep the other part from being fulfilled, so God is just and God is merciful to all, just the way you are to be.
Yes! it would be unjust for God to "arbitrarily" (which is the way you are describing His choice) select you for salvation and not select everyone else (everyone who is not different then you are).
If God determined from the beginning of time, to save all those who humbly accepted His help, then He would be totally just, fair, merciful, Loving, consistent, and rational in saving some and not others.

ChristosKurios · Mar 16, 2020

bling said:
Yes! it would be unjust for God to "arbitrarily" (which is the way you are describing His choice) select you for salvation and not select everyone else (everyone who is not different then you are).

Romans 9:18-19 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul would not ask this hypothetical question unless He believed the ultimate determination of ones salvation to be in the hands of God alone. Paul is saying that God has the sovereign right to do with us whatever He wants. Will you deny Him this right?

We must always keep in mind that God is obligated to save no one and that we all justly deserve His wrath. Mercy by definition is not obligatory. Just because we don’t know why He chooses some to faith and not others is not reason enough to reject it.

FreeGrace2 · Mar 16, 2020

ChristosKurios said:
Romans 9:18-19 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

We must always keep in mind that God is obligated to save no one and that we all justly deserve His wrath. Mercy by definition is not obligatory. Just because we don’t know why He chooses some to faith and not others is not reason enough to reject it.

He doesn't choose anyone "to faith". He chooses people to salvation.

This is how Paul describes that choice:

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

God chooses to save those who believe. And this is by grace.

Paul also said this:

Eph 2:8,9-
8 For it is by grace you have been saved (salvation), through faith—and this (salvation) is not from yourselves, it (salvation) is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

tdidymas · Mar 16, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
He doesn't choose anyone "to faith". He chooses people to salvation.

This is how Paul describes that choice:

1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

God chooses to save those who believe. And this is by grace.

Paul also said this:

Eph 2:8,9-
8 For it is by grace you have been saved (salvation), through faith—and this (salvation) is not from yourselves, it (salvation) is the gift of God—
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

God chose us to adoption as sons - Eph. 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will."
TD

bling · Mar 16, 2020

ChristosKurios said:
Romans 9:18-19 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Paul would not ask this hypothetical question unless He believed the ultimate determination of ones salvation to be in the hands of God alone. Paul is saying that God has the sovereign right to do with us whatever He wants. Will you deny Him this right?

We must always keep in mind that God is obligated to save no one and that we all justly deserve His wrath. Mercy by definition is not obligatory. Just because we don’t know why He chooses some to faith and not others is not reason enough to reject it.

God has “obligated” Himself by telling us He is complete “just” and defining with scripture in words and examples (especially the example of Christ) what being “just and unjust” are. God cannot explain to us, something is wrong and then go out Himself and do what He said is wrong?

Daniel said: Daniel 9:9 “The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him”, so God has to be “merciful”.

I think I have presented this before when people have taken out of context any of Ro. 9 without anyone countering my explanation: Here is a brief explanation of Ro.9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

FreeGrace2 · Mar 16, 2020

tdidymas said:
God chose us to adoption as sons - Eph. 1:5 "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will."
TD

Still, guess who the "us" are in v.5.

Hint: it's still the VERY SAME ONES as the 10 "us's" from v.3 through v.19. That would be "us who believe".

He chose, elected and predestined all believers to be holy and blameless (v.4) and to adoptions as sons".

btw, this He didn't chose to adopt believers, as you might think.

We become sons of God through faith in Christ, according to the Bible.

Gal 3:26 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

tdidymas · Mar 16, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Still, guess who the "us" are in v.5.

Hint: it's still the VERY SAME ONES as the 10 "us's" from v.3 through v.19. That would be "us who believe".

He chose, elected and predestined all believers to be holy and blameless (v.4) and to adoptions as sons".

btw, this He didn't chose to adopt believers, as you might think.

We become sons of God through faith in Christ, according to the Bible.

Gal 3:26 - So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith,

Since adoption and belief cannot be separated, God chose some to believe and others were not chosen. "Predestined to adoption as sons" means that those born again are believers - 1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God".
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 17, 2020

tdidymas said:
Since adoption and belief cannot be separated, God chose some to believe and others were not chosen.

Where is the verse that actually SAYS that God chooses "some to believe". This is just a reformed talking point. An opinion, but not based on Scripture.

"Predestined to adoption as sons" means that those born again are believers

Right. God has predestined believers "to adoption as sons". Do you know WHEN believers will be adopted?

This is what the Bible says:

Rom 8:23 - Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

Wadda ya' know. We are adopted WHEN we are resurrected!

- 1 John 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God".
TD

I have no idea what you think this verse means, but it means that those who are believing in Christ (right now, from the perspective of the writer) have been born of God.

iow, from anyone's perspective, those who are now believers, have been born again. All this means is that one is born again when one believes.

tdidymas · Mar 17, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Where is the verse that actually SAYS that God chooses "some to believe". This is just a reformed talking point. An opinion, but not based on Scripture.

Right. God has predestined believers "to adoption as sons". Do you know WHEN believers will be adopted?

This is what the Bible says:

Rom 8:23 - Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.

Wadda ya' know. We are adopted WHEN we are resurrected!

So according to what you claim here, you are not a son of God. And this is in direct contradiction to what the NT teaches, for example 1John 3:1 and Rom. 8:14. Perhaps you are confused about the stages of salvation, that we are first adopted to sonship in spirit, and then in the resurrection our bodies are redeemed also (Rom. 8:23). But at present, we have received the spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), therefore we are sons indeed, and have been adopted as such.

Your idea reminds me of the heresy of the Philadelphia Church of God in which they claim that no one is born again until the resurrection. It just goes to show how scripture can be twisted into anything just to support a preconceived idea. You can claim you are not an adopted son of God if you want, and that's your prerogative, and anyone can believe whatever they want, even that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. IMO your idea conveyed here is just a Remonstrance talking point.

I have no idea what you think this verse means, but it means that those who are believing in Christ (right now, from the perspective of the writer) have been born of God.

iow, from anyone's perspective, those who are now believers, have been born again. All this means is that one is born again when one believes.

1 Jn. 5:1 says clearly that all who believe are born of God, which means that one cannot believe before being born of God. If anyone chooses to accept Christ, it means he already believes, and according to this verse, if one believes, he is already born of God. Therefore believing follows being born of God. Very simple logic.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 17, 2020

I asked this:
"Where is the verse that actually SAYS that God chooses "some to believe". This is just a reformed talking point. An opinion, but not based on Scripture."

tdidymas said:
So

Hold on. Why did you ignore my question? You're just trying to "talk over" me, as if my post doesn't count and you don't have to respond. If so, then there's no sense in further discussion.

according to what you claim here, you are not a son of God.

This shows that you are unfamiliar with 1st Century, or better, Roman adoption. It is NOTHING like what we have today. Please educate yourself on Roman adoption.

As to being a son of God, of course I am. You just don't comprehend the adoption ceremony in the 1st Century. The appointed heir of a father's estate went through an adoption ceremony, which was to celebrate the appointed heir's coming of age and being "adopted", which was recognition of his status as heir. Usually the eldest son was the one who was adopted, but history shows that even trusted slaves had been "adopted" and became heir of the estate.

The Bible says "we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Gal 3:26. So your "conclusion" about my view falls flat.

And this is in direct contradiction to what the NT teaches, for example 1John 3:1 and Rom. 8:14. Perhaps you are confused about the stages of salvation, that we are first adopted to sonship in spirit, and then in the resurrection our bodies are redeemed also (Rom. 8:23).

You are showing your own failure to understand Scripture. Rom 8:23 shows clearly that we are STILL WAITING for our adoption. So believers AREN'T "first adopted" at all. It occurs at our resurrection.

But at present, we have received the spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), therefore we are sons indeed, and have been adopted as such.

We are sons by faith in Christ.

Your idea reminds me of the heresy of the Philadelphia Church of God in which they claim that no one is born again until the resurrection.

This is ludicrous. My view isn't at all related to such nonsense.

It just goes to show how scripture can be twisted into anything just to support a preconceived idea.

You sure have. I just proved from a verse that you cited that your "first adopted" comment is unbiblical.

You can claim you are not an adopted son of God if you want, and that's your prerogative, and anyone can believe whatever they want, even that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it true. IMO your idea conveyed here is just a Remonstrance talking point.

Our adoption occurs at the resurrection. Rom 8:23 says so.

"Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies."

Just what do you think "as we wait eagerly for our adoption" means?

1 Jn. 5:1 says clearly that all who believe are born of God, which means that one cannot believe before being born of God.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

This is what I said about 1 John 5:1 in my previous post:

"I have no idea what you think this verse means, but it means that those who are believing in Christ (right now, from the perspective of the writer) have been born of God.

iow, from anyone's perspective, those who are now believers, have been born again. All this means is that one is born again when one believes."

Why do you so consistently ignore what I post and just keep repeating yourself?

If anyone chooses to accept Christ, it means he already believes, and according to this verse, if one believes, he is already born of God. Therefore believing follows being born of God. Very simple logic.
TD

You completely misread and misunderstand the verse. John isn't talking about initial saving faith, that moment when one puts their faith in Christ, as you assume.

He is simply saying that those who have been believing up to now have been born again.

If you don't at least acknowledge my comments, there is no reason to continue.

tdidymas · Mar 17, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I asked this:
"Where is the verse that actually SAYS that God chooses "some to believe". This is just a reformed talking point. An opinion, but not based on Scripture."
Hold on. Why did you ignore my question? You're just trying to "talk over" me, as if my post doesn't count and you don't have to respond. If so, then there's no sense in further discussion.

I was once Arminian as you are, but was converted after studying scripture for 40 years. It is not "just a reformed talking point" as you derogatorily say. I know that you and I differ on interpretation. So my "slam dunk" scripture is John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." So believing is God's work, not man's. But I expect you will misinterpret it, and try to debunk my interpretation of scripture.

This shows that you are unfamiliar with 1st Century, or better, Roman adoption. It is NOTHING like what we have today. Please educate yourself on Roman adoption.

As to being a son of God, of course I am. You just don't comprehend the adoption ceremony in the 1st Century. The appointed heir of a father's estate went through an adoption ceremony, which was to celebrate the appointed heir's coming of age and being "adopted", which was recognition of his status as heir. Usually the eldest son was the one who was adopted, but history shows that even trusted slaves had been "adopted" and became heir of the estate.

NT adoption is not based on Roman culture. The Bible says we are sons of God now, in addition to sons by means of "the redemption of our bodies." Therefore it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an archaeologist to figure out that we are saved spiritually as believers, and will be saved physically in the resurrection. Therefore IMO you are just trying to jump through interpretive hoops by claiming that Paul was talking about Roman culture.

The Bible says "we are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Gal 3:26. So your "conclusion" about my view falls flat.

Yet it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when Paul writes "predestined to adoption as sons" that he is talking about the here and now for all believers. Again, IMO you're trying to jump through interpretive hoops to circumvent the plain language of scripture.

You are showing your own failure to understand Scripture. Rom 8:23 shows clearly that we are STILL WAITING for our adoption. So believers AREN'T "first adopted" at all. It occurs at our resurrection.

We are adopted as sons in the spirit first, and this is the Christian's current position in Christ. Heb. 12:9 calls God "the father of spirits," so God fathered us in spirit, even as Peter also says that God "begat" us by the word of truth. Therefore, born of God is literal and spiritual, equally as the resurrection is literal and physical. So being adopted in the here and now spiritually is contrasted with Christ's being begotten of the Father. Christ is begotten, we are adopted. So, the context shows which part of our salvation that the adoption is referring to. Obviously Rom. 8:23 is referring to "the redemption of our bodies," which is the resurrection, whereas Eph. 1:5 is referring to the redemption of our spirits, since it says in :7 "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" which is present tense.

We are sons by faith in Christ.

Yes, and our faith is the work of God in us.

This is ludicrous. My view isn't at all related to such nonsense.

It is related in that you use the same method of interpretation.

You sure have. I just proved from a verse that you cited that your "first adopted" comment is unbiblical.

See my comment above which proves it is biblical.

Our adoption occurs at the resurrection. Rom 8:23 says so.

"Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies."

Just what do you think "as we wait eagerly for our adoption" means?

All words of scripture are defined in the context in which they are used, just as it is in all languages. See my comment above on how the term "adoption" points to different stages in salvation between Rom. 8:23 and Eph. 1:5.

No, it doesn't mean that at all.

This is what I said about 1 John 5:1 in my previous post:

"I have no idea what you think this verse means, but it means that those who are believing in Christ (right now, from the perspective of the writer) have been born of God.

iow, from anyone's perspective, those who are now believers, have been born again. All this means is that one is born again when one believes."

You are trying to claim that a person believes prior to being born again, but 1 Jn. 5:1 proves otherwise. He does not say "can be born of God" or "will be" or any such thing. If you examine the Greek, it says "has been born of God." It means that if a person believes, he has already been born of God.

IMO John is giving strong encouragement to anyone who wonders if he has been born again, or if he belongs to God at all, which many young believers find themselves in that state of mind. John is assuring them that if they are a believer, that they have nothing to worry about, since they have been born of God already.

Why do you so consistently ignore what I post and just keep repeating yourself?

The last time I conversed with you I got totally frustrated with you because you were doing this very thing.

You completely misread and misunderstand the verse. John isn't talking about initial saving faith, that moment when one puts their faith in Christ, as you assume.

He is simply saying that those who have been believing up to now have been born again.

If you don't at least acknowledge my comments, there is no reason to continue.

"Believing up to now" are the words that you insert into the text, so your claim that I misread the verse is hypocritical. There is no such thing as "initial saving faith" that is different than "believing up to now" anyway. If a person believes, then something has initiated that faith, and it wasn't the autonomy of that person who believes. Faith in Christ is God's work, not man's.

But it may be pointless to continue anyway, since I know you don't believe any of this.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 17, 2020

tdidymas said:
I was once Arminian as you are

Once again you have made a totally wrong conclusion. I have no idea why you think that, but I assure you I am more OSAS than the Calvinists.

but was converted after studying scripture for 40 years.

It's good that you were converted from Arminianism. Are you a Calvinist now?

It is not "just a reformed talking point" as you derogatorily say.

I wasn't being derogatory, I was noting fact. Are you embarrassed when statements are correctly labeled?

I know that you and I differ on interpretation. So my "slam dunk" scripture is John 6:29 "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." So believing is God's work, not man's. But I expect you will misinterpret it, and try to debunk my interpretation of scripture.

Your interpretation seems to miss the context altogether.

Here is the entire context for v.29-
25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.
27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

In v.26 Jesus calls out the crowd for their real objective, which was getting more free food.

In v.27, Jesus encouraged the crowd to focus on eternal life, rather than on free food.

In v.28 the crowd asks Jesus what THEY MUST DO TO DO THE WORKS GOD REQUIRES.

So, here's the point. They were thinking in terms of what they themselves are required to do.

So Jesus' answer in v.29 is really a tongue-in-cheek answer. When He said "the work of God is this..." He was telling them what God REQUIRES for having eternal life.

So, "the work of God" means "the work that God requires", obviously.

But, one's bias will override the obvousness of the verse. His answer was in response to the crowd's question.

NT adoption is not based on Roman culture.

Are you kidding? Where ELSE would Paul know about adoption? He didn't experience the 20th Century.

The Bible says we are sons of God now, in addition to sons by means of "the redemption of our bodies."

No, you are still misreading the text. We are sons of God NOW by faith in Christ. And we look forward to our adoption, which is when our bodies will be resurrected.

Didn't you read what I wrote about Roman adoption? But, of course, these facts challenge your bias, so you just dismiss it out of hand by your unsubstantiated claim. Did you even bother to google 1st Century Roman adoption?

Therefore it doesn't take a rocket scientist or an archaeologist to figure out that we are saved spiritually as believers, and will be saved physically in the resurrection.

Of course.

Therefore IMO you are just trying to jump through interpretive hoops by claiming that Paul was talking about Roman culture.

Go ahead and deny all you want. But the information is readily available on the internet.

Yet it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when Paul writes "predestined to adoption as sons" that he is talking about the here and now for all believers.

Except Rom 8:23 doesn't permit that idea at all.

Again, IMO you're trying to jump through interpretive hoops to circumvent the plain language of scripture.

I'm the one trying to hold you to the plain language of Scripture. But you are a denier.

We are adopted as sons in the spirit first, and this is the Christian's current position in Christ.

There are 4 verses in the NT where "adoption as sons".

Rom 8:15 - For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”

This doesn't mean that we are NOW adopted. But that we have received the "Spirit of adoption as sons". Now, "as sons" means "because we are sons".

Rom 8:23 - And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

This is very clear verse that our actual adoption is still future, and tied to the First Resurrection.

Gal 4:5 - to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

The wording also shows a future adoption. Paul isn't saying that we are now adopted.

Eph 1:5 - he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Ditto as above regarding "as sons".

FreeGrace2 · Mar 17, 2020

Part 2 of my response to your long post.

Heb. 12:9 calls God "the father of spirits," so God fathered us in spirit, even as Peter also says that God "begat" us by the word of truth. Therefore, born of God is literal and spiritual, equally as the resurrection is literal and physical. So being adopted in the here and now spiritually is contrasted with Christ's being begotten of the Father.

No, rom 8:23 clearly states that we await our adoption, because we are sons. Which will occur at the resurrection.

Christ is begotten, we are adopted.

No, we are begotten of the Father.

1 John 5:1 - Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him.

We WILL BE adopted, because we are His sons. Rom 8:23

So, the context shows which part of our salvation that the adoption is referring to. Obviously Rom. 8:23 is referring to "the redemption of our bodies," which is the resurrection, whereas Eph. 1:5 is referring to the redemption of our spirits, since it says in :7 "we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" which is present tense.

How does Eph 1:5 relate to Rom 8:23??

All words of scripture are defined in the context in which they are used, just as it is in all languages. See my comment above on how the term "adoption" points to different stages in salvation between Rom. 8:23 and Eph. 1:5.

I didn't see any explanation. Just a statement. But unsubstantiated.

You are trying to claim that a person believes prior to being born again, but 1 Jn. 5:1 proves otherwise.

Nope. Parse the verse and see for yourself.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.

"believing ones' is a present participle. It refers to those who are believers. So obviously they had placed their faith in Christ prior to now.

"born of God" is a perfect indicative passive, which means the action occurred in the past.

He does not say "can be born of God" or "will be" or any such thing. If you examine the Greek, it says "has been born of God." It means that if a person believes, he has already been born of God.

What it doesn't mean is that being born of God precedes believing.

I said this:
"Why do you so consistently ignore what I post and just keep repeating yourself?"

The last time I conversed with you I got totally frustrated with you because you were doing this very thing.

I encourage you to go back and read your response to my post, and then read my post that you were "responding to". You ignored most of what I posted.

"Believing up to now" are the words that you insert into the text, so your claim that I misread the verse is hypocritical. There is no such thing as "initial saving faith" that is different than "believing up to now" anyway.

Seriously? Weren't you saved in a point in time when you first believed in Christ? Weren't you regenerated in a point in time? By "initial saving faith" I mean when you initially put your faith in Christ and were saved.

If a person believes, then something has initiated that faith, and it wasn't the autonomy of that person who believes.

Please define what you mean by "something". And please support your answer from Scripture. If there is something outside the person that "initiates" or "causes" one to believe, I'm sure the Bible would have said so.

Faith in Christ is God's work, not man's.

My exegesis of the context proves otherwise.

But it may be pointless to continue anyway, since I know you don't believe any of this.
TD

I sure don't accept the claims of someone who doesn't have very clear Scripture that supports their claims.

Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Member

Regular Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads