Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
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.

If you're a 1-point Calvinist, then you're a 4-point Arminian. I got my idea from the fact that you are claiming that belief is generated by the unregenerate human being by himself, without God pushing him to it. This is the whole issue, isn't it? The idea is by nature Arminian, which is also Pelagian, which also denies the doctrine of Total Depravity of spirit. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I thought you denied this in the past. But the idea that unregenerate man can believe in Christ on his own according to his own autonomy is a denial of total depravity of spirit, which Paul describes in Rom. 3:10-18.

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

If you want to label me that way. I'm not a follower of Calvin, since I have read very little of what he wrote. But some years ago, I began to study Reformed Theology because I found they came to the exact same conclusions I came to in my study of scripture.

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

It's only fact in your mind, and even "are you embarrassed" is derogatory, since it is ad hominem.

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.

Out of 14 translations, 13 of them say "this is the work of God..." Only 1 says "the deed God requires." It's interesting that you pick the isolated one to follow, since I take it you think it most follows your agenda. But I'll go with you there:

Are you admitting that believing is a work? Paul calls the faith principle a "law of faith." If you work the faith principle, you'll get saved - it's a cause and effect principle. Faith in Christ begets justification with God, thus salvation. So then, justification is the result, or wages of faith in Christ, since faith in Christ is the work God requires.

And indeed it is work, since faith requires knowledge, wisdom, a change of attitude toward God from hostile to friendly, mental warfare against the culture and peer pressure of the world, spiritual warfare against Satan's accusations and ideas, and so on. Unregenerate man is a slave to the devil, since John declares "the whole world is under the control of the evil one." And Paul declares "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they cannot see the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ."

So then, how can a person who doesn't believe the gospel message to be converted and start believing it? To claim that a person by themselves, by their own autonomy, can convert themselves from disbelief to belief by their own natural reasoning, is absurd. The message is either foolishness or a stumbling block to them. They'll never accept it, unless God steps in and pushes or pulls them to it. He does it by divine imposition. He does it by personal revelation of Himself to them. God Himself makes them to believe the message, and convinces them that it is true.

So a person believing is God doing the work of faith in a person. Just because we are commanded to believe, doesn't mean that unregenerate natural man is able to do it by himself. It begs the requirement that people change their attitudes. But a sinner can't change his attitude by himself. He loves his sin more than he loves God, so he reasons out an idea of God that isn't true. But the one to whom God reveals Himself as "the one true God," is the one who changes his attitude, because God is working in his heart for that attitude change.

But I suspect you'll mock all of this, because you believe that man is in control of his own destiny, and that predestination is merely God's foresight of certain people who happen to make the right decision at the right time.

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

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?

Paul was a Jew, and a pharisee of pharisees. Being a Roman citizen didn't make him culturally Roman. You assume far too much in your attempt to hang onto your agenda. But in Roman adoption, do they not select for adoption one that is worthy of it? Do they not select for adoption one that has the wherewithall to handle the status? And if this is your meaning for the salvation of souls (i.e. fit for resurrection), then I say that your kind of salvation is one of works.

Of course.

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

The info you refer to is useless for interpreting scripture.

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

I was referring to Eph. 1:5, but then I think you purposely misrepresent me.

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

Hardly. When you try to bring Roman culture into it, you are eisegeting.

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".

So if you're not adopted as son, then you're not a son. Adoption comes first, then sonship. Cause and effect, action and result. In order for us to be sons positionally in Christ, we must first be adopted by God. Therefore, Eph. 1:5 is referring to this current transition period between spiritual rebirth and resurrection. To claim it's not is very problematic, since the scripture says clearly that we are sons in the here and now.
TD

Mountainmanbob · Mar 18, 2020

Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

No
When Paul was blinded and knocked off his donkey he sure wasn't giving permission.

M-Bob

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
If you're a 1-point Calvinist, then you're a 4-point Arminian.

I'm a 0 point Calvinist and a 0 point Arminian. Bet you didn't know such was even possible.

I got my idea from the fact that you are claiming that belief is generated by the unregenerate human being by himself, without God pushing him to it.

Let me ask you a simple question. Who, other than yourself, "generates" your thoughts? Because "belief" is thinking. To accept a statement as fact or true, your mind MUST be working.

This is the whole issue, isn't it? The idea is by nature Arminian, which is also Pelagian, which also denies the doctrine of Total Depravity of spirit.

I absolutely DON'T deny the doctrine of total depravity. Of course human beings CANNOT save themselves, or even help God in the process.

What I absolutely DO deny is the Calvinist "overthink" that goes way beyond what Scripture teaches and claims that man can't even believe unless he has been regenerated. Being "made alive" is through faith, just as being saved is through faith. Eph 2:5 and 8.

Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I thought you denied this in the past. But the idea that unregenerate man can believe in Christ on his own according to his own autonomy is a denial of total depravity of spirit, which Paul describes in Rom. 3:10-18.

I think you are just misreading or misunderstanding what Paul wrote. That passage is about the fact that all men are sinful. Therefore, all need saving, and salvation comes from God (the rest of the chapter plus ch 4), not from man.

If you want to label me that way. I'm not a follower of Calvin, since I have read very little of what he wrote.

Your Calvinistic bias then came from many others who HAVE been biased by his writings. Somewhere along the line.

But some years ago, I began to study Reformed Theology because I found they came to the exact same conclusions I came to in my study of scripture.

Then prove from any verse that man is unable to believe unless regenerated.

If that were true, why doesn't the Bible just say so?

It's only fact in your mind, and even "are you embarrassed" is derogatory, since it is ad hominem.

So, it's "ad hominem" to be embarrassed??? It seems you don't want to be labeled as a "Calvinist" even though your theology is exactly that.

Out of 14 translations, 13 of them say "this is the work of God..." Only 1 says "the deed God requires." It's interesting that you pick the isolated one to follow, since I take it you think it most follows your agenda.

I explained very clearly WHY I posted what I did. From the CONTEXT. Doesn't context have much meaning to you? The question from the crowd in v.28 SHOWS that they were thinking about what God required of them. So Jesus answered in sort of a tongue-in-cheek way.

But I'll go with you there:

Are you admitting that believing is a work? Paul calls the faith principle a "law of faith."

No, it isn't a work. Certainly not the way Paul explained.

Rom 4:4,5
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

The point here is that work creates an OBLIGATION for payment. v.5 makes clear that faith (truting God) is NOT A WORK.

If you work the faith principle, you'll get saved - it's a cause and effect principle.

Rom 4:4,5 destroys that idea.

Faith in Christ begets justification with God, thus salvation.

Wrong again. While one is justified and saved THROUGH faith in Christ, we know that salvation is BY GRACE. Just go back to Rom 4:4,5 and study it until the truth gets through.

So then, justification is the result, or wages of faith in Christ, since faith in Christ is the work God requires.

A total misunderstanding of Scripture. Eph 2:8 doesn't permit your "interpretation".

And indeed it is work, since faith requires knowledge, wisdom, a change of attitude toward God from hostile to friendly, mental warfare against the culture and peer pressure of the world, spiritual warfare against Satan's accusations and ideas, and so on.

Then square that with what Jesus said:

Mark 10:15 - Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Ever heard the phrase "child-like faith"? This is what Jesus was referring to. And do you really believe that children go through all that you've just noted when they believe something?

Unregenerate man is a slave to the devil, since John declares "the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

I know that. However, you seem unaware of the fact that God created the human race (all people) with a conscience, with which to discern right from wrong.

And Paul declares "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they cannot see the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ."

OK.

So then, how can a person who doesn't believe the gospel message to be converted and start believing it?

Everyone has the capacity to believe/accept that God exists and what His promises are. Rom 1:19-21 shows that mankind has NO EXCUSE for not doing that.

To claim that a person by themselves, by their own autonomy, can convert themselves from disbelief to belief by their own natural reasoning, is absurd.

What is truly absurd is your convoluted idea that thoughts are changed from within.

Have you ever changed your mind about anything? That alone proves your theory to be wrong.

The message is either foolishness or a stumbling block to them. They'll never accept it, unless God steps in and pushes or pulls them to it.

Sure. And the verse that supports your opinion?

He does it by divine imposition.

I'd love to see the verse that teaches this.

He does it by personal revelation of Himself to them.

Right. Rom 1:19-21

God Himself makes them to believe the message, and convinces them that it is true.

Sorry, but you have exactly zero support from Scripture on this Calvinist talking point. It is opinion, not fact.

So a person believing is God doing the work of faith in a person.

No it's not. You are just expressing your own opinion.

Just because we are commanded to believe, doesn't mean that unregenerate natural man is able to do it by himself.

Please explain WHY twice in the book of Acts we read of people who "refused to believe"; 14:2 and 19:9.

Please realize that for a person to be able to REFUSE an action, they MUST BE capable of doing the action.

It begs the requirement that people change their attitudes.

Of course they can. Unless you have never experienced a change of mind.

But a sinner can't change his attitude by himself.

And why do you think so? What verse convinces you of that idea?

He loves his sin more than he loves God, so he reasons out an idea of God that isn't true.

Are you speaking specifically about every unbeliever on earth or just generally?

But the one to whom God reveals Himself as "the one true God," is the one who changes his attitude, because God is working in his heart for that attitude change.

Are you not aware that God gives insight to those who seek Him? From Rom 1:19-21, only those who believe what God has revealed to everyone, will God give them more information.

But I suspect you'll mock all of this

No, I just refute what is unbiblical. See above.

because you believe that man is in control of his own destiny

Now listen up. NO, I don't believe that nonsense. God is in control. And God's plan is to save believers. And I, unlike yourself, can support my claims directly and clearly from Scripture.

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.

Notice who is doing the saving: God Himself. And notice God's attitude about saving "those who believe". If your theories were correct, the verse would say something different, like: "God was pleased to cause some to believe and others to reject". Kinda like the Calvinist claims.

and that predestination is merely God's foresight of certain people who happen to make the right decision at the right time.

All who believe are predestined to enter heaven. What's the problem.

Show me ANY verse that teaches that God predestines anyone to belief in His Son.

Paul was a Jew, and a pharisee of pharisees. Being a Roman citizen didn't make him culturally Roman. You assume far too much in your attempt to hang onto your agenda.

I see that you weren't all that keen on informing yourself of facts.

But in Roman adoption, do they not select for adoption one that is worthy of it?

Of course they do. And the resurrection body is only for those who "are worthy". Not meaning that they EARNED anything, but that they have believed in Christ. They are worthy only because their faith is in Christ, the Ultimate Worthy One.

Do they not select for adoption one that has the wherewithall to handle the status?

You just keep missing the point. It was generally the son of the father who gets adopted once the son has reached maturity. Not before.

Note how Paul said it:
Gal 4-
1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.
3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world.
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

v.1 is the point I am making.

And if this is your meaning for the salvation of souls (i.e. fit for resurrection), then I say that your kind of salvation is one of works.

Well, your "if" condition is false. Are you arguing that we are NOT "sons of God through faith in Christ"????

I was referring to Eph. 1:5, but then I think you purposely misrepresent me.

That would be your own fault since you weren't clear.

Hardly. When you try to bring Roman culture into it, you are eisegeting.

You have just admitted that you have no idea how to interpret Scripture. Without considering the local culture, you are at a very serious disadvantage.

So if you're not adopted as son, then you're not a son.

You keep missing the point. It was the son who was adopted, generally. Some times it was a trusted slave.

Adoption comes first, then sonship.

You are basing that on OUR local culture. That is NOT what a roman adoption was about.

You could easily fix your ignorance about this by simply googling 1st Century Roman adoptions.

Cause and effect, action and result. In order for us to be sons positionally in Christ, we must first be adopted by God.

That's your opinion. Scripture says otherwise. Don't you believe Gal 3:26?

13 of 28 or 29 translations on biblehub.com say "sons of God".

This is how biblehub.com explains the Greek word:
Strong's Concordance
huios: a son
Original Word: υἱός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: huios
Phonetic Spelling: (hwee-os')
Definition: a son
Usage: a son, descendent.
HELPS Word-studies
5207 hyiós – properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28).

Therefore, Eph. 1:5 is referring to this current transition period between spiritual rebirth and resurrection. To claim it's not is very problematic, since the scripture says clearly that we are sons in the here and now.
TD

YES, YES, YES. Believers are NOW "sons of God". But we "await our adoption as (because we are) sons". Rom 8:23

Your views have not been defended from Scripture. Mine have.

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Part 2 of my response to your long post.

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

That's redemption of our bodies. Redemption (i.e. adoption) of our spirits has already happened.

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

Your idea contradicts even Roman adoption, which is done to someone not a son. "Adoption as sons" has to refer to being adopted first when not a son, then becoming a son. So adoption is the logical precedent of sonship.

Incidentally Christ is said to be "the only begotten," so we are not begotten in the same sense. Thus, I take being born of God in the converted sense as being adopted.

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

It's a different context, so the meaning of the word must be adjusted according to how it is used. In 8:23 Paul defines "adoption as sons" - "the redemption of our bodies". But in Eph. 1:5 he defines "adoption as sons" by v. 7 "we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins". Since this is present tense, this stage of adoption has to be spiritual as opposed to the physical redemption of body. And so the term adoption is equated with redemption, in the one case physical and the other spiritual.

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

See explanation above.

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.

Your parsing here proves my point. Whoever currently believes has been born of God as a past event. Consider the moment one begins to believe. According to this verse, "born of God" is still a past event. It's consistent throughout the whole process.

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

Yet, believing prior to being born of God means that a person believing is not born of God at that moment, and this idea is inconsistent with the verse.

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

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.

Yet, this is exactly what you do in much of your responses. My response to you is to quote scripture and explain my interpretation of it, to show that my interpretation is consistent with scripture, and yours is not.

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. I'm trying to say that the faith we have "up to now" is the same faith as when we first believed. Since there is no difference, I can't see your point has any relevance.

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.

The "something" I am referring to is God's work in man, but you believe that "something" is man's natural reasoning, and that's where our paths diverge.

My exegesis of the context proves otherwise.

hardly.

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

Your statement is hypocritical. You want me to accept your explanations at face value, but you refuse to accept mine at face value. We're at an impasse.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
That's redemption of our bodies. Redemption (i.e. adoption) of our spirits has already happened.

No, redemption isn't adoption. But you are free to believe what you want to.

Your idea contradicts even Roman adoption, which is done to someone not a son.

Since the Bible has clearly taught that believers are all "sons of God" through faith in Christ, you can just get over the distraction, which isn't a part of biblical adoption.

"Adoption as sons" has to refer to being adopted first when not a son,

Uh, "has to"??? Really? Where do you get that idea from?

then becoming a son. So adoption is the logical precedent of sonship.

Such "logic" is quite fuzzy. Show me the Scripture. But I've already shown you the verse that says we are all sons of God through faith in Christ (Gal 3:26) and that we are "awaiting our adoption AS SONS" (Rom 8:23). You just aren't reading Rom 8:23 correctly. Just as a Roman son awaited his adoption AS A SON, so believers do the same.

Incidentally Christ is said to be "the only begotten," so we are not begotten in the same sense. Thus, I take being born of God in the converted sense as being adopted.

In a "convoluted sense". You have no Scriptural basis for your ideas.

It's a different context, so the meaning of the word must be adjusted according to how it is used. In 8:23 Paul defines "adoption as sons"

See above. Even Roman sons were awaiting their adoption AS A SON.

They didn't become a son through adoption. They were already a son. That's you don't understand.

Yet, believing prior to being born of God means that a person believing is not born of God at that moment, and this idea is inconsistent with the verse.

I have proven the opposite from Eph 2:5 and 8.

you've done nothing to refute my points.

Yet, this is exactly what you do in much of your responses. My response to you is to quote scripture and explain my interpretation of it, to show that my interpretation is consistent with scripture, and yours is not.

You haven't shown that at all.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. I'm trying to say that the faith we have "up to now" is the same faith as when we first believed. Since there is no difference, I can't see your point has any relevance.

Well, I can't make you understand.

The "something" I am referring to is God's work in man, but you believe that "something" is man's natural reasoning, and that's where our paths diverge.

I've shown you from Scripture why my view is correct. You seem to have no appreciation for Rom 2:14,15.

Your statement is hypocritical. You want me to accept your explanations at face value, but you refuse to accept mine at face value. We're at an impasse.
TD

Your explanations do not comport with Scripture, as I've been noting all along.

In fact, you continue to refuse to educate yourself on Romans adoption, so there is no way I can help you understand what it is and why Paul used it.

You equate adoption with getting saved, and the Bible is clear that we are awaiting our adoption AS A SON in Rome waited for his adoption.

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I'm a 0 point Calvinist and a 0 point Arminian. Bet you didn't know such was even possible.

The basis of your anthropology is either Augustinian or Pelagian by nature. IOW, it's either Pauline or Judaistic, either Christian or humanist. It's saying the same essential thing as Calvinist or Arminian. So, I don't believe your statement is intellectually honest.

Let me ask you a simple question. Who, other than yourself, "generates" your thoughts? Because "belief" is thinking. To accept a statement as fact or true, your mind MUST be working.

Everyone's mind is influenced by different things, and thoughts arise out of those influences. You don't generate (or "work") a belief in something by mere reason. The influences against trusting in Christ far outweigh the "reasonableness" of the gospel message. You have satanic control, body chemistry, love for pleasure, inflated ego, peer pressure, desire to avoid pain, the bondage of the sinful nature, and likely many other influences that hinder people from believing the gospel. In fact, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 1, unregenerate man opposes the gospel message and cannot understand it spiritually, and therefore can't believe it. It takes God choosing an individual to clear his head and incite belief. If God doesn't incite belief in a person, they won't believe, because believing in the gospel message anticipates pain, persecution, loss of material goods, humiliation of ego, and many other things that the unregenerate love too much to convert.

I absolutely DON'T deny the doctrine of total depravity. Of course human beings CANNOT save themselves, or even help God in the process.

What I absolutely DO deny is the Calvinist "overthink" that goes way beyond what Scripture teaches and claims that man can't even believe unless he has been regenerated. Being "made alive" is through faith, just as being saved is through faith. Eph 2:5 and 8.

When you claim that Paul is talking Roman adoption, you are going beyond scripture, so your accusation is hypocritical.

And yes, you do deny the doctrine of total depravity, in the fact that you claim that man by himself works belief inside himself. But belief in Christ is a sanctifying act, since it results in justification, which puts us into a saved condition. So in effect, by claiming that man can and does believe on his own without God working it in him, is saying that man saves himself by the faith he works in himself. But autonomy is not the saving factor, and is not the choosing factor for saving.

I think you are just misreading or misunderstanding what Paul wrote. That passage is about the fact that all men are sinful. Therefore, all need saving, and salvation comes from God (the rest of the chapter plus ch 4), not from man.

This is exactly what I am conveying, including the gift of faith that God gives to individuals.

Your Calvinistic bias then came from many others who HAVE been biased by his writings. Somewhere along the line.

Here you refuse to hear what I actually said. I struggled for 40 years in bible study because I used to be Arminian in my anthropology, and the first time I heard of free grace, I did not believe it was biblical. But that was only my starting point. I studied the Bible, not men's writings. Perhaps it took 40 years because I was slow of learning. But after coming to an assurance of what the NT was actually teaching, I then ventured to the writings of men like Sproul, Luther, and others, and discovered they came to the very same conclusions I came to. The last example is my conclusion about belief not being man's free will choice, but by God's divine imposition. I held to this position for at least 10 years, but only discovered within the past year that reformed theologists are saying the same thing.

Then prove from any verse that man is unable to believe unless regenerated.

If that were true, why doesn't the Bible just say so?

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit..."
It does say so, you just refuse to accept the plain language of it.

So, it's "ad hominem" to be embarrassed??? It seems you don't want to be labeled as a "Calvinist" even though your theology is exactly that.

Like you don't want to be labeled Arminian even though your anthropology is exactly that?

Your ad hominem statement is designed to emotionally discredit me. I did not say that I was embarrassed or even implied it. It makes me wonder if you are embarrassed, since that's the word you came up with. If I'm tempted to feel anything, it's frustration, because we walk parallel lines and never shall meet.

I explained very clearly WHY I posted what I did. From the CONTEXT. Doesn't context have much meaning to you? The question from the crowd in v.28 SHOWS that they were thinking about what God required of them. So Jesus answered in sort of a tongue-in-cheek way.

Tongue-in-cheek doesn't negate the seriousness of what Jesus said to them. Jesus is not a deceiver nor did he ever say anything facetiously. He used their legal mindset to point to what God requires of man - nothing at all, except faith that believes God is at work. And this includes God being at work in man's believing, as a free gift.

No, it isn't a work. Certainly not the way Paul explained.

Rom 4:4,5

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.

5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

The point here is that work creates an OBLIGATION for payment. v.5 makes clear that faith (truting God) is NOT A WORK.

This is my point. When man does a work of righteousness, it's God doing the work in him, and not man by himself doing it. Faith is a work of righteousness, since belief in Christ brings the righteousness of God to his account. The point is that when a person believes in Christ, it is God doing the work in him to bring it about.

Rom 4:4,5 destroys that idea.

No, it doesn't, since Rom. 1:5 says "through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His name's sake." Obedience is a response to God's command, and if a person works obedience, he is at work. Obedience of faith is a working of faith that obeys God's command, and therefore a working faith is a work to one who works it.

Rom. 4 is talking about basing one's faith in God on one's ability to obey the laws of Moses, which is a different subject, but similar concept. In fact, it says "his faith is credited as righteousness." This is proof positive that Paul is saying that faith merits being credited with righteousness, so it is a wage in concept. The difference between them is that one wage is based on man performing legal acts, and the other is based on man performing the faith that justifies.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if anyone thinks he is working some righteous deed on his own without God performing that work through him, then that person's faith has failed to measure up to what the NT teaches. And this includes the faith that he works by walking in it. Faith is a righteous deed, since it results in justification. Therefore proper faith believes that God is working within, even in the working of faith.

John 3:21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God." Practicing the truth is a work that believes God is at work within - "having been wrought in God."

Wrong again. While one is justified and saved THROUGH faith in Christ, we know that salvation is BY GRACE. Just go back to Rom 4:4,5 and study it until the truth gets through.

A total misunderstanding of Scripture. Eph 2:8 doesn't permit your "interpretation".

No, Eph. 2:5 proves what I'm saying is true. 2:8 is based on the 2:5 definition of grace, which is the work of God in a person. 2:8 says of salvation, grace, and faith - "it is not of yourself, but the gift of God." In this, the grace of God is first, then the gift of faith is given to us by grace, then salvation comes as a result. Peter writes "obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." Salvation is the outcome, or result, of our faith. So since salvation is God's gift, faith is also.

Then square that with what Jesus said:

Mark 10:15 - Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Ever heard the phrase "child-like faith"? This is what Jesus was referring to. And do you really believe that children go through all that you've just noted when they believe something?

Methinks you miss the point. The whole attitude of child-like faith is God-given. And don't confuse that with gullibility.

I know that. However, you seem unaware of the fact that God created the human race (all people) with a conscience, with which to discern right from wrong.

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." No, your view of unregenerate man is not biblical. You might be able to think with a clear conscience now, since you have been released from the bondage of the devil's kingdom of darkness. Perhaps you don't remember when you loved darkness rather than light. Perhaps you don't remember when you rejected the gospel because you loved the pleasures of sin more than the truth. Perhaps you have forgotten how God came to you and convinced you that the gospel was the truth, and not only that, but how important it was to you to respond favorably to the message.

Everyone has the capacity to believe/accept that God exists and what His promises are. Rom 1:19-21 shows that mankind has NO EXCUSE for not doing that.

Yet, "no one understands..." Not that anyone has an excuse, although Paul came close to it by saying "it's not me sinning, but the sin in me doing it." But the principle of sin in man is what is preventing him from believing the gospel on his own without God making him believe by reason of granting him wisdom from above. Having a "capacity to believe/accept..." does not make it happen. The sinful nature has to be overcome in order for someone to believe in Christ, since that is a righteous condition of heart. When Jeremiah says "the heart is deceitful above all else and desperately wicked," he is talking about the natural heart of man apart from any of God's working in his spirit. When Paul writes "with the heart man believes unto righteousness," he is not contradicting Jeremiah, and therefore has to be assuming that God is working in the heart of man for this faith resulting in righteousness.

What is truly absurd is your convoluted idea that thoughts are changed from within.

Have you ever changed your mind about anything? That alone proves your theory to be wrong.

Thoughts are changed from one thing to another by many influences, both within and without. I'm saying that man's natural thinking that the gospel doesn't make any sense to him is overcome by God showing up. Call it within or without, makes no difference. God shows up, reveals Himself, convinces the individual that the gospel message is true, convinces them they must respond to it, and then enables them to respond by using the light of His own glory to suppress the sinful nature and its desires, thus causing them to respond favorably.

To the person it appears that they are responding on their own, because they can't see beyond the veil of their flesh. They think it was their decision, and theirs alone, because they can't see beyond their own conceit and inflated ego. But the NT teaches us that it is all the work of God, in order to set our thinking aright, and to encourage our faith and help that glory to come out in our attitudes and actions.

Sure. And the verse that supports your opinion?

1 Cor. 2:14. But you knew that already.

I'd love to see the verse that teaches this.

Acts 22:6, Acts 16:14, Acts 13:48, Eph. 2:5

Right. Rom 1:19-21

This verse is general revelation, not personal.
Scripture is special revelation, not personal.
Personal revelation is God meeting a person in a face-to-face like manner.

Sorry, but you have exactly zero support from Scripture on this Calvinist talking point. It is opinion, not fact.

Your claim is your talking point. I've already given evidence of this. Eph. 2:5.

No it's not. You are just expressing your own opinion.

And since your opinion differs because of your theology and agenda, our paths diverge.

Please explain WHY twice in the book of Acts we read of people who "refused to believe"; 14:2 and 19:9.

Please realize that for a person to be able to REFUSE an action, they MUST BE capable of doing the action.

Like I said before, being capable doesn't make it so. The sinful nature makes a person refuse to believe, and is so for everyone alike, unless God does something to get them out of that bondage.

Of course they can. Unless you have never experienced a change of mind.

The sinful nature prevents the unregenerate from changing their attitude toward God. This is what Rom. 1-3 is about.

And why do you think so? What verse convinces you of that idea?

Paul's argument for man's bondage to the sinful nature in Rom. ch. 1, 2, 3, & 7.

Are you speaking specifically about every unbeliever on earth or just generally?

Paul's teaching is about people in general. I assume that everyone is the same and has a sinful nature. But of course, being in bondage to the sinful nature only applies to the unregenerate, and there are many in this world who are born of God. Also, there might be people who never experienced abject bondage to sin, being saved at a young age. But I don't believe that anyone is a special or better person over and above anyone else, so even if a person was saved at a young age, they had potential of being in abject bondage to sin. And since people do generally have a conscience (although I find that some do not), people naturally feel guilty about their sin, and so have to make excuses for themselves in order to sleep at night.

Are you not aware that God gives insight to those who seek Him? From Rom 1:19-21, only those who believe what God has revealed to everyone, will God give them more information.

"To him who has, more will be given. But to him who doesn't have, even what he has will be taken away." I see you claiming that if a person seeks God, that God will reveal Himself more to them. Ok, but is God working His work in them or not? It appears to me that you are leaving this completely out of your formula. If someone believes the God who generally reveals His works, that person already has been worked on by God to some extent.

However, if you are saying that a person comes into faith in Christ by reason of that person seeking God (how else can I take what you said), then your idea speaks of coming into salvation by the works of seeking God. Paul wrote "no one seeks for God." So you are leaving out the bondage to the sinful nature in your formula of total depravity.

No, I just refute what is unbiblical. See above.

Just as I said you would.

Now listen up. NO, I don't believe that nonsense. God is in control. And God's plan is to save believers. And I, unlike yourself, can support my claims directly and clearly from Scripture.

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.

Notice who is doing the saving: God Himself. And notice God's attitude about saving "those who believe". If your theories were correct, the verse would say something different, like: "God was pleased to cause some to believe and others to reject". Kinda like the Calvinist claims.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that since faith results in justification, that faith is just as much the gift of God as justification is. Since faith results in righteousness, faith is just as much the gift of God as righteousness.

All who believe are predestined to enter heaven. What's the problem.

Show me ANY verse that teaches that God predestines anyone to belief in His Son.

I already did in John 6:29, you just don't accept it.

(End of part I)
TD

yeshuaslavejeff · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
I'm a 0 point Calvinist and a 0 point Arminian. Bet you didn't know such was even possible.

I think this is great! Realize that those labels are often misleading, no matter who uses them, or who they try to label with them !? ... right ?

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

Part II

FreeGrace2 said:
I see that you weren't all that keen on informing yourself of facts.

"facts" according to your agenda, of course.

Of course they do. And the resurrection body is only for those who "are worthy". Not meaning that they EARNED anything, but that they have believed in Christ. They are worthy only because their faith is in Christ, the Ultimate Worthy One.

My point was that we are sons now, and adoption comes first. Therefore we are adopted spiritually first, then bodily in the resurrection.

You just keep missing the point. It was generally the son of the father who gets adopted once the son has reached maturity. Not before.

Note how Paul said it:
Gal 4-
1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.
3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world.
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.
6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.

v.1 is the point I am making.

It sounds like you are equating adoption with inheriting, it's not the same. Adoption comes first, then inheritance. We already have received adoption to sonship spiritually, as v. 6 indicates. Then glorification is inheritance.

Well, your "if" condition is false. Are you arguing that we are NOT "sons of God through faith in Christ"????

No.

That would be your own fault since you weren't clear.

Sorry.

You have just admitted that you have no idea how to interpret Scripture. Without considering the local culture, you are at a very serious disadvantage.

After reviewing what materials are available to me, including new articles on the internet, I have concluded that anything Paul might have had in mind concerning Roman adoption doesn't change my mind or my interpretation of those scripture verses on adoption. Your idea that a son in the family gets adopted after reaching maturity simply doesn't exist in any of the materials or commentaries I read, and therefore I regard it as highly suspect. I think you'll need to give me a link to where you see that, and then I can examine that carefully.

You keep missing the point. It was the son who was adopted, generally. Some times it was a trusted slave.

I read several articles, reviews, and a thesis on the subject, along with the commentaries available to me, and not one of them indicated that a son in the family was ever adopted. Adoption was for someone outside of the family to gain political or legal status to become an heir.

You are basing that on OUR local culture. That is NOT what a roman adoption was about.

You could easily fix your ignorance about this by simply googling 1st Century Roman adoptions.

No, I am basing it on what I observe in the text. Adoption after sonship doesn't fit in the context of the verse.

That's your opinion. Scripture says otherwise. Don't you believe Gal 3:26?
13 of 28 or 29 translations on biblehub.com say "sons of God".

This is how biblehub.com explains the Greek word:
Strong's Concordance
huios: a son
Original Word: υἱός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: huios
Phonetic Spelling: (hwee-os')
Definition: a son
Usage: a son, descendent.
HELPS Word-studies
5207 hyiós – properly, a son (by birth or adoption); (figuratively) anyone sharing the same nature as their Father. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). In the NT, 5207 /hyiós ("son") equally refers to female believers (Gal 3:28).

Sonship by faith doesn't negate adoption. It's all together, just as grace, salvation and faith are all together as one package gifted from God. Your idea that one becomes a son first and then is adopted, as you claim is the Roman way, I deem that wrong, and just your eisegetic idea you want to insert so that you can conclude that predestination is not predestination.

YES, YES, YES. Believers are NOW "sons of God". But we "await our adoption as (because we are) sons". Rom 8:23

Your views have not been defended from Scripture. Mine have.

No, my views still stand, as far as I am concerned. Again, you put two verses together and try to make them mean the same thing just because they have the same phrase. Not a good hermeneutic. The context of Rom. 8:23 shows the part of adoption that is glorification. The context of Eph. 1:5 shows the part of adoption that is justification.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
The basis of your anthropology is either Augustinian or Pelagian by nature. IOW, it's either Pauline or Judaistic, either Christian or humanist.

The basis of my theology (NOT "anthropology") is the Bible. I believe what is plainly stated.

It's saying the same essential thing as Calvinist or Arminian. So, I don't believe your statement is intellectually honest.

So what? It is, whether you recognize it or not.

Too many people think there are only 2 theological systems; either Calvinist or Arminian. I find large errors in both of them.

Everyone's mind is influenced by different things, and thoughts arise out of those influences. You don't generate (or "work") a belief in something by mere reason.

So, you're still 'generating' thoughts, huh. ^_^

The influences against trusting in Christ far outweigh the "reasonableness" of the gospel message.

That's your Calvinistic opinion. Because of Romans 1:19-21, NO ONE has any excuse for not recogizing the existence of God and being thankful to Him.

You have satanic control, body chemistry, love for pleasure, inflated ego, peer pressure, desire to avoid pain, the bondage of the sinful nature, and likely many other influences that hinder people from believing the gospel.

Yeah, the devil is one busy dude.

Regardless, Romans 1:19-21 says that man is without excuse. Every man.

If the Calvinist opinion were correct, EVERYONE not "chosen" would have a legitimate excuse for not getting to heaven. It would go something like this: "Since God didn't choose me, it's NOT MY FAULT for ending up in hell. Because the chosen ones were just as sinful as I was."

In fact, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 1, unregenerate man opposes the gospel message and cannot understand it spiritually, and therefore can't believe it.

Nonsense. Unbelievers throughout history have fully understood the gospel and still rejected it.

It takes God choosing an individual to clear his head and incite belief.

Calvinist talking point.

If God doesn't incite belief in a person, they won't believe, because believing in the gospel message anticipates pain, persecution, loss of material goods, humiliation of ego, and many other things that the unregenerate love too much to convert.

More talking points.

When you claim that Paul is talking Roman adoption, you are going beyond scripture, so your accusation is hypocritical.

No, I'm applying proper hermeneutics to understand what is meant. You're the one denying the reality of history.

And yes, you do deny the doctrine of total depravity, in the fact that you claim that man by himself works belief inside himself.

Your very wording demonstrates the silliness in your biased opinions. No one "works belief inside himself". That is just hilarious. God created humanity to think, to reason, to discern right from wrong.

From what you write, it seems you don't believe Rom 2:14,15.

But belief in Christ is a sanctifying act, since it results in justification, which puts us into a saved condition.

Wow, how wrong can one get! Paul wrote that God IMPUTES or CREDITS righteousness to those who believe. It is God who "sanctifies" the believer. It is NOT the act of believing that sanctifies. Those who think so are wrong.

So in effect, by claiming that man can and does believe on his own without God working it in him, is saying that man saves himself by the faith he works in himself.

This idea that Man "works faith in himself" is just so bogus. Your Calvinist bias really has your tail.

Man thinks, reasons, decides from the conscience that God created in him.

Rom 10:9 - If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Do you notice WHERE a person believes from? "in your heart".

Then, v.10 - For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

There is NOTHING in Scripture about God regenerating so people can believe. Or that God changes the heart so people believe.

1 Cor 3-
14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.
15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.
16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

v.14 and 16 plainly tells us the order. "in Christ" meaning saved, per Eph 1:13,14 and "turning to the Lord" here. Your theology has it backwards.

But autonomy is not the saving factor, and is not the choosing factor for saving.

No, it is what pleases God. He is pleased when people believe in His Son. 1 Cor 1:21.

This is exactly what I am conveying, including the gift of faith that God gives to individuals.

Since "faith" is a noun, it refers to the body of doctrines contained in His Word. And that is a gift. But the act of believing is NOT a gift. It is what every human being is able to do.

Here you refuse to hear what I actually said. I struggled for 40 years in bible study because I used to be Arminian in my anthropology, and the first time I heard of free grace, I did not believe it was biblical. But that was only my starting point. I studied the Bible, not men's writings. Perhaps it took 40 years because I was slow of learning. But after coming to an assurance of what the NT was actually teaching, I then ventured to the writings of men like Sproul, Luther, and others, and discovered they came to the very same conclusions I came to.

All Calvinists. So what? I've spent nearly the same time studying and I can't find ANY verse that supports TULIP.

The last example is my conclusion about belief not being man's free will choice, but by God's divine imposition.

This is total nonsense. Every belief a person has comes from a choice. And you have chosen to reject what I say, just as I reject what you say. Each of us is convinced of what we believe. But I have clear Scripture, unlike any Calvinist.

You give a lot of talking points, but no verses that actually say what you claim.

"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit..."
It does say so, you just refuse to accept the plain language of it.

Just read the entire context to see what Paul was saying. v.6 is addressing the spiritually mature believer. v.10 speaks of the "deep things of God", which are the advanced doctrines that immature believers struggle with.

Like you don't want to be labeled Arminian even though your anthropology is exactly that?

That is your opinion and is it flatly wrong. They wrongly believe that free will means that a person can leave their salvation. I strongly reject that nonsense.

Your ad hominem statement is designed to emotionally discredit me.

Again, your opinion.

I did not say that I was embarrassed or even implied it.

Your response sure looked like it.

It makes me wonder if you are embarrassed, since that's the word you came up with. If I'm tempted to feel anything, it's frustration, because we walk parallel lines and never shall meet.

If you placed your faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, we may actually meet some day.

Tongue-in-cheek doesn't negate the seriousness of what Jesus said to them.

Of course it doesn't negate anything. But the context proves that His comment was addressed using their own language. They wanted to know what God required of them. What work He required (v.28). So Jesus answered in that light.

Jesus is not a deceiver nor did he ever say anything facetiously. He used their legal mindset to point to what God requires of man - nothing at all, except faith that believes God is at work.

I don't have a problem with this statement.

And this includes God being at work in man's believing, as a free gift.

You keep stating this, so can you quote any verse that supports this statement?

This is my point. When man does a work of righteousness, it's God doing the work in him, and not man by himself doing it.

What you speak of here refers to the power of the Holy Spirit in the believer, in whom the Holy Spirit indwells. The Holy Spirit does have a ministry of conviction, but Luke told us that men resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51).

Faith is a work of righteousness, since belief in Christ brings the righteousness of God to his account.

Righteousness is IMPUTED, OR CREDITED. There is no righteousness in the act of believing.

The point is that when a person believes in Christ, it is God doing the work in him to bring it about.

Only through the principle of Rom 1:19-21.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if anyone thinks he is working some righteous deed on his own without God performing that work through him, then that person's faith has failed to measure up to what the NT teaches.

This just shows your biased view of believing in Christ, thinking it is a work of God. Especially since you have no verses that say this.

No, Eph. 2:5 proves what I'm saying is true. 2:8 is based on the 2:5 definition of grace, which is the work of God in a person. 2:8 says of salvation, grace, and faith - "it is not of yourself, but the gift of God." In this, the grace of God is first, then the gift of faith is given to us by grace, then salvation comes as a result. Peter writes "obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls." Salvation is the outcome, or result, of our faith. So since salvation is God's gift, faith is also.

This is so raveled up, I don't know where to start. The first phrase and last phrase in v.5 are equated. iow, to be "made alive" (regeneration) is the same as "being saved".

You cannot have one without the other. No way.

And v.8 shows that salvation is "through faith". That means faith precedes salvation.

Just as Noah was saved by going "through the water". The water had to be there in order for that statement to be true. The same is true of v.8.

Methinks you miss the point. The whole attitude of child-like faith is God-given.

Just more talking points.

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." No, your view of unregenerate man is not biblical. You might be able to think with a clear conscience now, since you have been released from the bondage of the devil's kingdom of darkness. Perhaps you don't remember when you loved darkness rather than light.

I put my faith in Christ at age 7 when my mother explained the gospel to me. So there wasn't much of any kingdom of darkness in my pre-salvation life.

Thoughts are changed from one thing to another by many influences, both within and without. I'm saying that man's natural thinking that the gospel doesn't make any sense to him is overcome by God showing up. Call it within or without, makes no difference.

What you still can't prove is your opinion that God causes one to believe, and that God chose that person to believe in eternity past. If that were true, then all who end up in the lake of fire will have a legitimate excuse for being there. It goes like this: "God never chose me." I never had a chance to believe the gospel. He wouldn't let me." But, probably, you won't see the obviuosness of this truth.

To the person it appears that they are responding on their own, because they can't see beyond the veil of their flesh. They think it was their decision, and theirs alone, because they can't see beyond their own conceit and inflated ego. But the NT teaches us that it is all the work of God, in order to set our thinking aright, and to encourage our faith and help that glory to come out in our attitudes and actions.

Your talking points just keepl stacking up.

Acts 13:48

You want to go there? Sure, let's do.

The word "tasso", unfortunately mistranslated as "appointed" or "ordained" doesn't mean that in any of the other 7 uses in the NT. The word came from the military, and has to do with lining up. Now, v.44 says - On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. This was a sticking point with the Jews. They got really jealous about it.

Then Paul mentions "eternal life" in v.46 negatively with respect to the Jews (they considered themselves unworthy of eternal life). Then he said in v.48 that the Gentiles lined up for eternal life by believing. The voice for 'tasso' can be either middle or passive, and is determined from the context. What is clear is that neither Paul or Luke even mentioned God in the context. Given v.44, the middle voice makes better sense. They lined themselves up to hear what Paul was preaching.

Your claim is your talking point. I've already given evidence of this. Eph. 2:5.

No you haven't. v.5 sinks your boat. Regeneration is equated with being saved. If you can't see that, I can't help you any further.

Like I said before, being capable doesn't make it so.

I don't know what this means.

The sinful nature makes a person refuse to believe, and is so for everyone alike, unless God does something to get them out of that bondage.

You are refusing to admit that to "refuse" means an ability to act.

The sinful nature prevents the unregenerate from changing their attitude toward God. This is what Rom. 1-3 is about.

No it's not.

However, if you are saying that a person comes into faith in Christ by reason of that person seeking God (how else can I take what you said), then your idea speaks of coming into salvation by the works of seeking God. Paul wrote "no one seeks for God." So you are leaving out the bondage to the sinful nature in your formula of total depravity.

The only point of total depravity is that man is totally unable to save himself. It's the Calvinist doctrine that goes too far and claims that man cannot believe the gospel. As your many repetitions of your talking points shows.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that since faith results in justification, that faith is just as much the gift of God as justification is.

I've already noted that "faith" is a noun. Not a verb. And God credits righteousness on the basis of faith.

I already did in John 6:29, you just don't accept it.

I don't accept your talking points, of course.

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
Part II

"facts" according to your agenda, of course.

My point was that we are sons now, and adoption comes first. Therefore we are adopted spiritually first, then bodily in the resurrection.

It sounds like you are equating adoption with inheriting, it's not the same. Adoption comes first, then inheritance. We already have received adoption to sonship spiritually, as v. 6 indicates. Then glorification is inheritance.

No.

Sorry.

After reviewing what materials are available to me, including new articles on the internet, I have concluded that anything Paul might have had in mind concerning Roman adoption doesn't change my mind or my interpretation of those scripture verses on adoption. Your idea that a son in the family gets adopted after reaching maturity simply doesn't exist in any of the materials or commentaries I read, and therefore I regard it as highly suspect. I think you'll need to give me a link to where you see that, and then I can examine that carefully.

I read several articles, reviews, and a thesis on the subject, along with the commentaries available to me, and not one of them indicated that a son in the family was ever adopted. Adoption was for someone outside of the family to gain political or legal status to become an heir.

No, I am basing it on what I observe in the text. Adoption after sonship doesn't fit in the context of the verse.

Sonship by faith doesn't negate adoption. It's all together, just as grace, salvation and faith are all together as one package gifted from God. Your idea that one becomes a son first and then is adopted, as you claim is the Roman way, I deem that wrong, and just your eisegetic idea you want to insert so that you can conclude that predestination is not predestination.

No, my views still stand, as far as I am concerned. Again, you put two verses together and try to make them mean the same thing just because they have the same phrase. Not a good hermeneutic. The context of Rom. 8:23 shows the part of adoption that is glorification. The context of Eph. 1:5 shows the part of adoption that is justification.
TD

Bottom line; you cannot support your talking points with clearly stated Scripture.

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
No, redemption isn't adoption. But you are free to believe what you want to.

I believe what Paul plainly wrote, in which he defined "adoption as sons" is "the redemption of our bodies" in one place, and as "the forgiveness of our sins" in another. This is plain language you refuse to accept, because of your agenda.

Since the Bible has clearly taught that believers are all "sons of God" through faith in Christ, you can just get over the distraction, which isn't a part of biblical adoption.

I get that you cannot prove that biblical adoption is not becoming sons of God, otherwise you would have done it by now. According to the plain language of scripture, it's various ways of naming the same event.

Uh, "has to"??? Really? Where do you get that idea from?

It's common sense, which scripture also adheres to in addition to the law of non-contradiction. Anyone can see that before a person is finally adopted, they were not a child in the family. It's the reason for the adoption. Your idea that in Rome a man's own son is subsequently adopted simply does not exist in anything I read about it.

Such "logic" is quite fuzzy. Show me the Scripture. But I've already shown you the verse that says we are all sons of God through faith in Christ (Gal 3:26) and that we are "awaiting our adoption AS SONS" (Rom 8:23). You just aren't reading Rom 8:23 correctly. Just as a Roman son awaited his adoption AS A SON, so believers do the same.

The way you are putting these verses together is bad hermeneutic. And your idea that you hang on to that a Roman son awaits his adoption is pure fiction as far as I can tell. You have yet to prove any of this from a Biblical standpoint. The way you're putting two verses together from different contexts to support your opinion is the same kind of hermeneutics that cults do.

But I stand firm on my interpretation that there are 2 stages of adoption, first spiritual, then physical, just as there are 2 stages of salvation, first spiritual, then physical, just as there are 2 stages of redemption, first spiritual, then physical. So then, adoption, salvation, and redemption are merely 3 different words describing the same process and events from different angles. This is how common language works, and how people normally describe abstracts. And the NT is no different, since it is the conversation of the apostles.

In a "convoluted sense". You have no Scriptural basis for your ideas.

And I say I've proven it already.

See above. Even Roman sons were awaiting their adoption AS A SON.

They didn't become a son through adoption. They were already a son. That's you don't understand.

Again, a fabrication.

I have proven the opposite from Eph 2:5 and 8.

you've done nothing to refute my points.

I disagree.

You haven't shown that at all.

I disagree.

Well, I can't make you understand.

And neither I you.

I've shown you from Scripture why my view is correct. You seem to have no appreciation for Rom 2:14,15.

I disagree.

Your explanations do not comport with Scripture, as I've been noting all along.

In fact, you continue to refuse to educate yourself on Romans adoption, so there is no way I can help you understand what it is and why Paul used it.

You equate adoption with getting saved, and the Bible is clear that we are awaiting our adoption AS A SON in Rome waited for his adoption.

I disagree. Your idea on adoption is fiction.
TD

tdidymas · Mar 18, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Bottom line; you cannot support your talking points with clearly stated Scripture.

I think we're done here.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
I believe what Paul plainly wrote, in which he defined "adoption as sons" is "the redemption of our bodies" in one place, and as "the forgiveness of our sins" in another. This is plain language you refuse to accept, because of your agenda.

Again, our adoption is AS SONS. iow, it is sons (children) who are adopted, just as the typical Roman custom, which you refuse to accept.

What you really believe is that we are adopted to be sons. Yet, Scripture doesn't say that in ANY verse. That' the fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

I get that you cannot prove that biblical adoption is not becoming sons of God

You should also ACCEPT that as fact, since there are no verses that say what you think "adoption as sons" means.

It's common sense, which scripture also adheres to in addition to the law of non-contradiction. Anyone can see that before a person is finally adopted, they were not a child in the family.

You are describing adoption in OUR culture, not the culture of the day in which Paul wrote. But you refuse to accept that FACT.

It's the reason for the adoption.

No it's not, in the culture of Paul's day. Back then, adoption was about inheritance. As I showed from Gal 4:1-5.

1 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father.
3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world.
4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.

Your idea that in Rome a man's own son is subsequently adopted simply does not exist in anything I read about it.

Then get someone to help you surf the internet. Because it's there. Even I found information regarding Roman adoption in the 1st Century.

The way you are putting these verses together is bad hermeneutic. And your idea that you hang on to that a Roman son awaits his adoption is pure fiction as far as I can tell.

Well then, you just can't tell very far. It's there all right.

You have yet to prove any of this from a Biblical standpoint.

The facts are in history. We call it the culture of Paul's day.

But I stand firm on my interpretation that there are 2 stages of adoption, first spiritual, then physical, just as there are 2 stages of salvation, first spiritual, then physical, just as there are 2 stages of redemption, first spiritual, then physical. So then, adoption, salvation, and redemption are merely 3 different words describing the same process and events from different angles. This is how common language works, and how people normally describe abstracts. And the NT is no different, since it is the conversation of the apostles.

Factual history refutes your theory.

And I say I've proven it already.

You can say anything you want.

Again, a fabrication.

That would be both Arminian and Calvinist theology.

I disagree. Your idea on adoption is fiction.
TD

It wasn't my idea. You think I just made all this up??? How absurd. I learned about it from scholars who study such things. And I did the research myself on the internet.

Why haven't you?

FreeGrace2 · Mar 18, 2020

tdidymas said:
I think we're done here.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 19, 2020

TD, I have a few questions for you.

Given the Calvinist view that election is to salvation, why did God command His apostles to fulfill the Great Commission, which is to "preach the gospel to EVERY creature, and teaching them...". What would be the point of this?

On top of that, Titus 2:11 teaches clearly that salvation is for everyone.

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

And why would Paul, the greatest theologian ever, write this:

1 Tim 2-
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

So, how do you spin this into a Calvinist talking point?

If salvation is by election, and God has to regenerate those He chooses so they can believe, why did Jesus Christ die for EVERYONE?

John 1:29 - The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 4:42 - They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

2 Cor 5-
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Tim 4:10 - That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

Heb 2:9 - But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

I don't see how Calvinism can answer any of these questions.

What say you?

tdidymas · Mar 19, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
TD, I have a few questions for you.

Given the Calvinist view that election is to salvation, why did God command His apostles to fulfill the Great Commission, which is to "preach the gospel to EVERY creature, and teaching them...". What would be the point of this?

This is a very common question among people who don't understand Reformed theology. It's a confusion between predestination and determinism, which isn't the same. Determinism is taught by hyper-calvinists, which is an aberrant form, and is related to fatalism. But Reformed theology teaches that God is at work through individuals, and therefore, prayer, evangelism, and everything that Christians are commanded to do applies. "How shall they hear unless there is a preacher?" writes Paul in Rom. 10, and Peter writes that we were born again through the preaching of the gospel. So then, God works in the hearts of individuals to produce the godliness that He commands of us, and this is the faith we live by.

If you want to learn more about Reformed theology, I recommend this site:
Monergism |

On top of that, Titus 2:11 teaches clearly that salvation is for everyone.

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

And why would Paul, the greatest theologian ever, write this:

1 Tim 2-
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

So, how do you spin this into a Calvinist talking point?

There are different ways these statements are interpreted, which are viable interpretations. One is that "all people" refer to all ethic groups. Since the early church had a very difficult time believing that God was saving the gentile nations (as we find in Acts 10-15), the language of the NT may be inclined toward groups of people when talking about "all people," "the whole world" and other such terms.

Another viable interpretation is that God has a decretive will (that which God brings about by His own commitment to do so), and a permissive will (that which God desires to happen, but allows people to resist it). This is not far-fetched, as it is common practice among people; some things people are committed to have happen, and other things are desirable, but not required if it somehow is in opposition or not expedient to their primary purpose. So when it says "God wants all people to be saved," it could mean God desires it, but does not make it happen as it would not be expedient to His judgment of sinful man.

If salvation is by election, and God has to regenerate those He chooses so they can believe, why did Jesus Christ die for EVERYONE?

John 1:29 - The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 4:42 - They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

2 Cor 5-
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15 And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Tim 4:10 - That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

Heb 2:9 - But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

I don't see how Calvinism can answer any of these questions.

What say you?

Christ's sacrifice is worthy of redeeming everyone who ever lives, and 1000 times over, because it's "the blood of God" that redeems men. But we see in scripture that not all are saved, so the conclusion we must draw is that Christ's atoning sacrifice applies effectively only to those who believe in Him. So then "Savior of all people," "Savior of the world," "reconciling the world," "for everyone," and other such terms effectively apply only to those elect who are born again believers, and who become believers in their life.

For example, "Christ died for all, therefore all died." Paul must be talking about believers, since the context shows that's who he is talking about, and he says "not counting their sins against them." But regarding unbelievers, John writes "the wrath of God abides on them." Therefore to be consistent in scripture, the conclusion must be that the NT authors are speaking of believers in these cases.

But these verses don't really address the real objection to unconditional election. The question is, why does God save some and not others? Isn't this the question you really are wanting to ask? If God really does unconditionally elect some to salvation, then the reason He elects people is solely in Himself, and is not found in the people He elects.

Finally, in regard to your idea that Romans commonly adopted their own natural sons, I just don't see in any of the materials I read, including about a dozen scholarly articles. They all say that the one adopted is from a different father than the adoptive father. So, I invite you to give me the link to your source, so that I can see for myself if what you say is true or not.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 19, 2020

tdidymas said:
This is a very common question among people who don't understand Reformed theology. It's a confusion between predestination and determinism, which isn't the same. Determinism is taught by hyper-calvinists, which is an aberrant form, and is related to fatalism. But Reformed theology teaches that God is at work through individuals, and therefore, prayer, evangelism, and everything that Christians are commanded to do applies. "How shall they hear unless there is a preacher?" writes Paul in Rom. 10, and Peter writes that we were born again through the preaching of the gospel. So then, God works in the hearts of individuals to produce the godliness that He commands of us, and this is the faith we live by.

Does this mean that you don't accept the doctrine that man is unable to believe? Then you still must believe that God chooses who will believe. There's no other option here. Yet, there are no verses that teach this.

So, you still have a theology that God chooses who will believe, and that He also chose many more to never believe, by not choosing them to believe.

You've got double predestination either way you cut it.

If you want to learn more about Reformed theology, I recommend this site:
Monergism |

I'm fully aware of that theology.

I said:
"On top of that, Titus 2:11 teaches clearly that salvation is for everyone.

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

And why would Paul, the greatest theologian ever, write this:

1 Tim 2-
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

So, how do you spin this into a Calvinist talking point?"

There are different ways these statements are interpreted, which are viable interpretations.

Actually, all of the statement are quite clear in their contexts. The Bible teaches that Christ literally died for every human being. Calvinism just spins it to suit their own theology and to be consistent with the first 2 points of TULIP.

One is that "all people" refer to all ethic groups.

That's just a spin. The Greek word "pas" doesn't mean that. And no context even hints at such an interpretation.

Since the early church had a very difficult time believing that God was saving the gentile nations (as we find in Acts 10-15), the language of the NT may be inclined toward groups of people when talking about "all people," "the whole world" and other such terms.

Nice try.

Another viable interpretation is that God has a decretive will (that which God brings about by His own commitment to do so), and a permissive will (that which God desires to happen, but allows people to resist it). This is not far-fetched, as it is common practice among people; some things people are committed to have happen, and other things are desirable, but not required if it somehow is in opposition or not expedient to their primary purpose.

The conflict continues. If God has to choose who will believe, due to man's inability to believe, then He most clearly didn't want all to believe. Yet, Scripture plainly SAYS THAT. You can't have it both ways. Either Calvinism is in error, or the Bible is. They are diametrically opposed on this point.

So when it says "God wants all people to be saved," it could mean God desires it, but does not make it happen as it would not be expedient to His judgment of sinful man.

Nope. Every man is sinful. No one deserves salvation. Yet, your theology says that God chooses who will believe and makes it happen by regenerating them apart from their will. Again, the theology is in contradiction to the Bible.

Christ's sacrifice is worthy of redeeming everyone who ever lives, and 1000 times over, because it's "the blood of God" that redeems men. But we see in scripture that not all are saved, so the conclusion we must draw is that Christ's atoning sacrifice applies effectively only to those who believe in Him.

But the issue is that the Bible very plainly says that He died for everyone. And Calvinism cannot explain why He did.

So then "Savior of all people," "Savior of the world," "reconciling the world," "for everyone," and other such terms effectively apply only to those elect who are born again believers, and who become believers in their life.

That is just spin, and a lot of it. He literally died for everyone. The Bible says so clearly.

For example, "Christ died for all, therefore all died." Paul must be talking about believers, since the context shows that's who he is talking about, and he says "not counting their sins against them."

Actually, Paul was referring to every human being. Or don't you believe that all unbelievers "died"? When Paul wrote "therefore all died", how can that just refer to those who believe?? The entire human race is born spiritually dead, separated from God. This is very clear.

But regarding unbelievers, John writes "the wrath of God abides on them." Therefore to be consistent in scripture, the conclusion must be that the NT authors are speaking of believers in these cases.

Nonsense. All human beings are born spiritually dead and in need of the Savior. And the gospel is for everyone.

But these verses don't really address the real objection to unconditional election. The question is, why does God save some and not others? Isn't this the question you really are wanting to ask?

No, I have no problem with that. I think it bothers Calvinists a lot, though. The answer is free will. Man is free to make up his own mind, which have already expressed your disagreement with that.

If God really does unconditionally elect some to salvation, then the reason He elects people is solely in Himself, and is not found in the people He elects.

But He doesn't "unconditionally elect some to salvation. In fact, you cannot find any verse that says that God elects anyone to salvation. And by "election", I mean any of the word group for election; namely the noun ekloge, the verb eklegomai, and the adjective eklektos. The word in 2 Thess 2:13 isn't part of this word group; which is haireomai. Further, the verse clearly speaks of the fact that God has chosen (not elected) the means of salvation, which is through the sanctification of the Spirit, even belief in the truth.

Finally, in regard to your idea that Romans commonly adopted their own natural sons, I just don't see in any of the materials I read, including about a dozen scholarly articles.

Maybe you could use some help in how to do a search. I had no problem.

They all say that the one adopted is from a different father than the adoptive father. So, I invite you to give me the link to your source, so that I can see for myself if what you say is true or not.
TD

From Adoption in ancient Rome - Wikipedia,

In ancient Rome, adoption of boys was a fairly common procedure, particularly in the upper senatorial class. The need for a male heir and the expense of raising children and the Roman inheritance rules (Lex Falcidia) strictly demanding legitimes were strong incentives to have at least one son, but not too many children. Adoption, the obvious solution, also served to cement ties between families, thus fostering and reinforcing alliances. Adoption of girls, however, was much less common.

In the Imperial period, the system also acted as a mechanism for ensuring a smooth succession, the emperor taking his chosen successor as his adopted son.

From Adoption in the Roman World - DTS Voice

The reader will quickly realize that there is a diversity of adoption practices. Two of the most striking differences between modern Western adoptions and the ancient Roman practice are related. First, the adoptee in Rome was usually an adult male (p. 25). Second, the reason for adoption was usually to pass on one’s inheritance (and one could add, to provide responsibility for the adoptee to care for the parents) rather than the modern reason of nurture (p. 28). Although not supported in any significant detail, Lindsey suggests that adoption began to diminish in the fourth century AD once the church was able to own land, because the church preferred to be the recipient of inheritances from childless couples (pp. 23–24). This is a topic worthy of further pursuit.

From Adoption in the Roman Empire - Life in the Roman Empire,

The motivation to adopt was very different in Roman times than today. While contemporary adoption is aimed at placing a child in a loving family, Roman adoption aimed at providing a suitable male heir to become the new pater familias when the family patriarch died. If a man had no sons, adoption was a common solution among the noble orders of senators and equestrians. How common it was among the lower classes is harder to determine. Women were seldom adopted, regardless of class.

**** From September 12, 2017 – Aleteia — Catholic Spirituality, Lifestyle, World News, and Culture/how-the-roman-practice-of-adoption-sheds-light-on-what-st-paul-was-talking-about/,

There was no process for adoption in the ancient Jewish culture. If a man died, his brother automatically became the head of his household, so there was no need for a legal adoption process. The word adoption, during the time and context in which St. Paul spoke, referred to the Roman concept of adoption.

In ancient Rome, adoption had a powerful meaning. When a child was born biologically, the parents had the option of disowning the child for a variety of reasons. The relationship, therefore, was not necessarily desired by the parent, nor permanent.

Not so, however, if a child was adopted. In Rome, adopting a child meant:

That child was freely chosen by the parents, desired by the parents.
That child would be a permanent part of the family; parents couldn’t disown a child they adopted.

An adopted child received a new identity. Any prior commitments, responsibilities and debts were erased. New rights and responsibilities were taken on. Also, in ancient Rome, the concept of inheritance was part of life, not something that began at death. Being adopted made someone an heir to their father, joint-sharers in all his possessions and fully united to him.

I wasn't making anything up. This was my search title: "1st Century Roman adoption".

These sources were at the top of the list on "DuckDuckGo", my search engine.

tdidymas · Mar 19, 2020

FreeGrace2 said:
Does this mean that you don't accept the doctrine that man is unable to believe? Then you still must believe that God chooses who will believe. There's no other option here. Yet, there are no verses that teach this.

So, you still have a theology that God chooses who will believe, and that He also chose many more to never believe, by not choosing them to believe.

You've got double predestination either way you cut it.

I'm fully aware of that theology.

I said:
"On top of that, Titus 2:11 teaches clearly that salvation is for everyone.

"For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people."

And why would Paul, the greatest theologian ever, write this:

1 Tim 2-
3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

So, how do you spin this into a Calvinist talking point?"

Actually, all of the statement are quite clear in their contexts. The Bible teaches that Christ literally died for every human being. Calvinism just spins it to suit their own theology and to be consistent with the first 2 points of TULIP.

That's just a spin. The Greek word "pas" doesn't mean that. And no context even hints at such an interpretation.

Nice try.

The conflict continues. If God has to choose who will believe, due to man's inability to believe, then He most clearly didn't want all to believe. Yet, Scripture plainly SAYS THAT. You can't have it both ways. Either Calvinism is in error, or the Bible is. They are diametrically opposed on this point.

Nope. Every man is sinful. No one deserves salvation. Yet, your theology says that God chooses who will believe and makes it happen by regenerating them apart from their will. Again, the theology is in contradiction to the Bible.

But the issue is that the Bible very plainly says that He died for everyone. And Calvinism cannot explain why He did.

That is just spin, and a lot of it. He literally died for everyone. The Bible says so clearly.

Actually, Paul was referring to every human being. Or don't you believe that all unbelievers "died"? When Paul wrote "therefore all died", how can that just refer to those who believe?? The entire human race is born spiritually dead, separated from God. This is very clear.

Nonsense. All human beings are born spiritually dead and in need of the Savior. And the gospel is for everyone.

No, I have no problem with that. I think it bothers Calvinists a lot, though. The answer is free will. Man is free to make up his own mind, which have already expressed your disagreement with that.

But He doesn't "unconditionally elect some to salvation. In fact, you cannot find any verse that says that God elects anyone to salvation. And by "election", I mean any of the word group for election; namely the noun ekloge, the verb eklegomai, and the adjective eklektos. The word in 2 Thess 2:13 isn't part of this word group; which is haireomai. Further, the verse clearly speaks of the fact that God has chosen (not elected) the means of salvation, which is through the sanctification of the Spirit, even belief in the truth.

Maybe you could use some help in how to do a search. I had no problem.

From Adoption in ancient Rome - Wikipedia,

In ancient Rome, adoption of boys was a fairly common procedure, particularly in the upper senatorial class. The need for a male heir and the expense of raising children and the Roman inheritance rules (Lex Falcidia) strictly demanding legitimes were strong incentives to have at least one son, but not too many children. Adoption, the obvious solution, also served to cement ties between families, thus fostering and reinforcing alliances. Adoption of girls, however, was much less common.

In the Imperial period, the system also acted as a mechanism for ensuring a smooth succession, the emperor taking his chosen successor as his adopted son.

From Adoption in the Roman World - DTS Voice

The reader will quickly realize that there is a diversity of adoption practices. Two of the most striking differences between modern Western adoptions and the ancient Roman practice are related. First, the adoptee in Rome was usually an adult male (p. 25). Second, the reason for adoption was usually to pass on one’s inheritance (and one could add, to provide responsibility for the adoptee to care for the parents) rather than the modern reason of nurture (p. 28). Although not supported in any significant detail, Lindsey suggests that adoption began to diminish in the fourth century AD once the church was able to own land, because the church preferred to be the recipient of inheritances from childless couples (pp. 23–24). This is a topic worthy of further pursuit.

From Adoption in the Roman Empire - Life in the Roman Empire,

The motivation to adopt was very different in Roman times than today. While contemporary adoption is aimed at placing a child in a loving family, Roman adoption aimed at providing a suitable male heir to become the new pater familias when the family patriarch died. If a man had no sons, adoption was a common solution among the noble orders of senators and equestrians. How common it was among the lower classes is harder to determine. Women were seldom adopted, regardless of class.

**** From September 12, 2017 – Aleteia — Catholic Spirituality, Lifestyle, World News, and Culture/how-the-roman-practice-of-adoption-sheds-light-on-what-st-paul-was-talking-about/,

There was no process for adoption in the ancient Jewish culture. If a man died, his brother automatically became the head of his household, so there was no need for a legal adoption process. The word adoption, during the time and context in which St. Paul spoke, referred to the Roman concept of adoption.

In ancient Rome, adoption had a powerful meaning. When a child was born biologically, the parents had the option of disowning the child for a variety of reasons. The relationship, therefore, was not necessarily desired by the parent, nor permanent.

Not so, however, if a child was adopted. In Rome, adopting a child meant:

That child was freely chosen by the parents, desired by the parents.

That child would be a permanent part of the family; parents couldn’t disown a child they adopted.

An adopted child received a new identity. Any prior commitments, responsibilities and debts were erased. New rights and responsibilities were taken on. Also, in ancient Rome, the concept of inheritance was part of life, not something that began at death. Being adopted made someone an heir to their father, joint-sharers in all his possessions and fully united to him.

I wasn't making anything up. This was my search title: "1st Century Roman adoption".

These sources were at the top of the list on "DuckDuckGo", my search engine.

All of the links you gave me I read, and nowhere do any of them refer to a man's own biological son being adopted by him. Adopted sons are all adopted from outside the immediate family. Among relatives, a nephew or a grandson, never a son. Therefore your idea that an adoptee is a son first, and then adopted is sheer nonsense, and I deem you don't know what you are talking about.

You came to me with questions that seemed sincere, but it is now apparent you just wanted to argue about it. I'm done with you.
TD

FreeGrace2 · Mar 20, 2020

tdidymas said:
All of the links you gave me I read, and nowhere do any of them refer to a man's own biological son being adopted by him. Adopted sons are all adopted from outside the immediate family. Among relatives, a nephew or a grandson, never a son. Therefore your idea that an adoptee is a son first, and then adopted is sheer nonsense, and I deem you don't know what you are talking about.

You came to me with questions that seemed sincere, but it is now apparent you just wanted to argue about it. I'm done with you.
TD

Here is from the 3rd source:

In ancient Rome, adoption had a powerful meaning. When a child was born biologically, the parents had the option of disowning the child for a variety of reasons. The relationship, therefore, was not necessarily desired by the parent, nor permanent.

Not so, however, if a child was adopted. In Rome, adopting a child meant:

That child was freely chosen by the parents, desired by the parents.
That child would be a permanent part of the family; parents couldn’t disown a child they adopted.

An adopted child received a new identity. Any prior commitments, responsibilities and debts were erased. New rights and responsibilities were taken on. Also, in ancient Rome, the concept of inheritance was part of life, not something that began at death. Being adopted made someone an heir to their father, joint-sharers in all his possessions and fully united to him.

In the very first paragraph, we find that natural born children could be disowned by the parents. This is the very reason the chosen heir was "adopted". Notice the 2 points about what "adopting" meant in Rome. It made the child a permanent heir.

But this idea shakes your notions that salvation can be lost.

Well, Paul's point was clear; by our adoption by God, we are a permanent heir.

None of the sources said that Roman adoption was choosing someone from outside the family. That certainly was possible, but normally the father chose the eldest or the most responsible son to be adopted.

But your excuse about my 3 sources is bogus. There were many more sources. It seems you just aren't interested in finding the truth here.

Here is another source on Roman adoptions. PATRIA POTESTA AND THE ROMAN CEREMONY OF ADOPTION

The last paragraph is the point of Paul's writing about "adoption".

"It was Paul�s picture that when a person became a Christian they entered into the Family of God. He did nothing to earn it; he did nothing to deserve it; God, the Great Father, in His amazing love and mercy, has taken the lost, helpless, poverty stricken, debt-laden sinner and adopted him into his own Family, so that the debts are cancelled and that unearned love and glory inherited! The price of adoption? The blood of Christ!"

From all the sources I read, the importance of ancient Roman adoption is that it was a legally PERMANENT arrangement and held special privileges. This is identical to God's
adopting believers.

I've shown that believers receive their "official" adoption at the resurrection. So now, believers are "awaiting their adoption" as Rom 8:23 plainly says.

So, the point of Paul's adoption is PERMANENCE in God's family. With special privileges.

Yesha · Mar 23, 2020

No.

I believe it is God triune who saves according to the good pleasure of his will. While difficult to express in short, I believe that the Scriptures reveal a sovereign God whose will is free of restraints or contingencies outside of himself.

Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

Newbie

Goat Whisperer

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Westminster Standards

Similar threads