Do you really believe that faith produces works?

FreeGrace2 · Jan 4, 2021

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Please explain what is meant by "that kind of faith". Where does the Bible specify which "kind of faith" people have when the Bible notes that people believe?

Thanks.

Spiritual Jew said:
The kind of faith that saves someone is what I'm talking about. I thought that would be obvious.

And that's the same kind of faith I'm talking about. But since Luke described the people in Samaria who believed the words of Philip and were baptized the SAME WAY he described Simon the sorcerer who also believed and was baptized, it should be quite obvious that Simon was just as much saved as "the people who believed and were baptized". The Bible NEVER mentions "saving faith" because when the Bible says people believed, it means they were saved.

Even the demons believe and shudder, so I'm clearly not talking about that kind of faith.

Here is shown how much misunderstanding you're applying to Scripture. James 2:19 isn't even about "faith". They weren't trusting in God as One. No. They had actually experienced "God as One". Before they joined Satan's rebellion in heaven.

So what they believed was by experience, not trust. But is seems that isn't clear to you.

Some children learn that a stove is hot by having touched the glowing element. They didn't have any faith that the element was hot until they touched it. Then they BELIEVED it was hot. Is that trusting? No, that is experience.

And, what the demons believed has NOTHING to do with salvation anyway. The object of what they believed was that God is One. That fact doesn't save anyone.

Why would one agree that Simon, who believed and was baptized along with the others wouldn't have saving faith when he wanted to buy the gift of laying on of hands to impart the Spirit to others?

Because the Bible SAID he believed and was baptized. Same as the others. No different.

Do you believe in sinless perfection?

I see no relevance at all to the fact that Simon believed and was saved.

Don't you understand that the ones who had saving faith received the Holy Spirit?

Of course I understand and of course they do. Even Simon did. But what you seem to miss is that Simon wasn't filled with the Spirit, as Paul commanded in Eph 5:18. Rather, Simon was grieving (Eph 4:30) and/or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).

Simon obviously didn't or else he wouldn't have wanted to pay for the ability to lay his hands on others to receive the Holy Spirit. That's not something that someone who had just received the Holy Spirit would have done.

Just a lot of assumption here.

Also, if Simon was saved and had received the Holy Spirit then I'm certain that Peter wouldn't have said this to him:

Acts 8:20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

This is not something you say to someone who has just been saved and has received the Holy Spirit. Period.

Of course it would be exactly what any doctrinally solid person WOULD say to Simon. He needed to get into fellowship with the Lord, through repentance and confession.

If Simon hadn't been saved, Peter would have given him the gospel TO BELIEVE. But he didn't.

You can't convince me otherwise.

How true. To the 7 churches in Rev 2-3, Jesus ends each of his messages to the churches with "he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches".

Do you understand what this means? It means to have an open mind. And listen to the Spirit of Truth. And I know I'll never convince anyone of truth. That job belongs to the Holy Spirit.

All I can do is present the truth. The Holy Spirit does the rest, as long as people have ears and are actually listening.

Some people, including believers do this instead:

Acts 28-
25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26 “ ‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

The red words describe unbelievers and some believers.
The blue words is the reason they "never understand/perceive".
The green words is the result IF IF IF they did open their eyes and ears. They would understand and turn, and God would heal them.

Spiritual Jew · Jan 4, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Here is shown how much misunderstanding you're applying to Scripture. James 2:19 isn't even about "faith". They weren't trusting in God as One. No. They had actually experienced "God as One". Before they joined Satan's rebellion in heaven.

What do you mean it isn't about faith? Believing and faith are the same thing.

So what they believed was by experience, not trust. But is seems that isn't clear to you.

It is very clear to me. It's clear to me that you don't understand that Simon wasn't trusting Christ for salvation, he was believing in the miracles he saw and wanting to do them himself for gain because he was a sorcerer.

Because the Bible SAID he believed and was baptized. Same as the others. No different.

So, it doesn't matter whether or not he was putting his trust in Christ as his Lord and Savior and wanting to follow Him? Apparently, his believing wasn't the same as the others because they received the Holy Spirit and he didn't.

Of course I understand and of course they do. Even Simon did. But what you seem to miss is that Simon wasn't filled with the Spirit, as Paul commanded in Eph 5:18. Rather, Simon was grieving (Eph 4:30) and/or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19).

There is no indication whatsoever that he ever received the Spirit. And how could he when his motives were clearly wrong? That was revealed when he tried to pay for the ability to lay hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit. He didn't get it. He was still all about himself and what he could gain from the whole thing. That is not how someone believes in Jesus. You believe in Him in a way that you intend to make Him your Lord and submit your life to Him, not to gain financially from being associated with Him.

Of course it would be exactly what any doctrinally solid person WOULD say to Simon. He needed to get into fellowship with the Lord, through repentance and confession.

That's not something you say to someone who just got saved. You don't tell them "May your money perish with you" or "You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God" or "I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin". If his faith was genuine and he truly repented of his sins then there is no way Peter would have said those things to him.

If Simon hadn't been saved, Peter would have given him the gospel TO BELIEVE. But he didn't.

He had already heard the gospel, so why would Peter need to tell it to him again? You are so clueless about this, it's unbelievable. But, we've already discussed this at length before and I have no interest in doing that again. Agree to disagree. I'm involved in too many other threads to have a long discussion about this again. I don't have the time or the interest to repeat everything I've already said about this.

How true. To the 7 churches in Rev 2-3, Jesus ends each of his messages to the churches with "he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches".

Do you understand what this means? It means to have an open mind. And listen to the Spirit of Truth. And I know I'll never convince anyone of truth. That job belongs to the Holy Spirit.

All I can do is present the truth. The Holy Spirit does the rest, as long as people have ears and are actually listening.

Some people, including believers do this instead:

Acts 28-
25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: “The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26 “ ‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”
27 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

The red words describe unbelievers and some believers.
The blue words is the reason they "never understand/perceive".
The green words is the result IF IF IF they did open their eyes and ears. They would understand and turn, and God would heal them.

You are equating yourself with the Holy Spirit here. You need to repent of your arrogance! I'm done with you. I don't want to waste my time with such an arrogant person as you who thinks that you speak for the Holy Spirit when you can't even recognize what genuine faith is or is not.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 4, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
What do you mean it isn't about faith? Believing and faith are the same thing.

I explained the difference. Clearly. What is it that isn't clear to you?

It is very clear to me. It's clear to me that you don't understand that Simon wasn't trusting Christ for salvation, he was believing in the miracles he saw and wanting to do them himself for gain because he was a sorcerer.

I see. So then, Luke simply lied when he said that Simon believed and was baptized, which is EXACTLY what he wrote about the others who believed and were baptized.

The Bible makes no distinction between the believing of others and Simon.

So, it doesn't matter whether or not he was putting his trust in Christ as his Lord and Savior and wanting to follow Him?

Please don't get the cart before the horse. Yes, Simon DID believe. That means he put his trust in the Messiah for salvation. But following Him is a command to all believers, meaning all who are already saved.

Apparently, his believing wasn't the same as the others because they received the Holy Spirit and he didn't.

Apparently?? That's just a poor judgment call. Luke describes the others and Simon in the EXACT SAME WAY. It WAS the same, whether one likes it or not.

There is no indication whatsoever that he ever received the Spirit.

Does Scripture mention that in every case? Of course not. Some examples:

Acts 2:47 - praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 5:14 - Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

And how could he when his motives were clearly wrong?

Because believers still sin.

That was revealed when he tried to pay for the ability to lay hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit. He didn't get it.

What Simon didn't get was the ability to give the indwelling Holy Spirit to others, which is what he wanted and was willing to pay for. Silly him.

He was still all about himself and what he could gain from the whole thing.

You got it. And there are believers all around us today who are all about themselves.

That is not how someone believes in Jesus.

No, it's not "how someone believes in Jesus". Of course not. And that isn't the issue. He DID believe because Luke SAID SO. It seems there is a strong unwillingness to simply accept what was written.

You believe in Him in a way that you intend to make Him your Lord and submit your life to Him, not to gain financially from being associated with Him.

Who says he believed for that reason? He was quite self centered, for sure. But that wasn't the motivation for his believing, as you presume.

That's not something you say to someone who just got saved. You don't tell them "May your money perish with you" or "You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God" or "I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin".

Apparently you don't think a new believer is capable of sin then. The word "perish" here refers to discipline of physical death, of which the Bible is full of examples.

If his faith was genuine and he truly repented of his sins then there is no way Peter would have said those things to him.

If what he believed wasn't saving faith, then Luke sure wrote poorly or outright lied then. Which is nonsense.

He had already heard the gospel, so why would Peter need to tell it to him again?

Do you want him saved or not? If he hadn't believed for salvation, then that's the ONLY THING he needs. But Peter made it clear that he needed to get his heart right before the Lord. As do many believers today, esp the self centered ones.

You are so clueless about this, it's unbelievable.

Well, I sure know who's clueless here.

Spiritual Jew · Jan 4, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
I explained the difference. Clearly. What is it that isn't clear to you?

I see. So then, Luke simply lied when he said that Simon believed and was baptized, which is EXACTLY what he wrote about the others who believed and were baptized.

The Bible makes no distinction between the believing of others and Simon.

Please don't get the cart before the horse. Yes, Simon DID believe. That means he put his trust in the Messiah for salvation. But following Him is a command to all believers, meaning all who are already saved.

Apparently?? That's just a poor judgment call. Luke describes the others and Simon in the EXACT SAME WAY. It WAS the same, whether one likes it or not.

Does Scripture mention that in every case? Of course not. Some examples:

Acts 2:47 - praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 5:14 - Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

Because believers still sin.

What Simon didn't get was the ability to give the indwelling Holy Spirit to others, which is what he wanted and was willing to pay for. Silly him.

You got it. And there are believers all around us today who are all about themselves.

No, it's not "how someone believes in Jesus". Of course not. And that isn't the issue. He DID believe because Luke SAID SO. It seems there is a strong unwillingness to simply accept what was written.

Who says he believed for that reason? He was quite self centered, for sure. But that wasn't the motivation for his believing, as you presume.

Apparently you don't think a new believer is capable of sin then. The word "perish" here refers to discipline of physical death, of which the Bible is full of examples.

If what he believed wasn't saving faith, then Luke sure wrote poorly or outright lied then. Which is nonsense.

Do you want him saved or not? If he hadn't believed for salvation, then that's the ONLY THING he needs. But Peter made it clear that he needed to get his heart right before the Lord. As do many believers today, esp the self centered ones.

Well, I sure know who's clueless here.

This can all be settled by you simply showing me where it says Simon received the Holy Spirit. Because all of them who were saved received the Holy Spirit. If you can't do that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree and move on from this old thread already.

5thKingdom · Jan 4, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
FreeGrace2 said: ↑ What the Bible NEVER says is that persons were "never meant to be saved", in spite of all the protestations. The words "never meant" don't occur EVER in the Bible.

Why do you want to CONTINUE to embarrass yourself?

The Bible does not NEED to use the words "never meant" when it
uses the words "MAY NOT" or "CAN NOT" or "SHOULD NOT".

You see, words have MEANINGS.
When JESUS says a man cannot "be converted"
or "have their sins forgiven"... the MEANING of that is
those men were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" or to
"have their sins forgiven"

But PLEASE feel free to prove me wrong.
Explain how a man who cannot "be converted" or
"have their sins forgiven"... can become SAVED?

You DO KNOW (I hope) that being SAVED requires
"conversion" and "forgiveness of sins"?

If you DO NOT yet understand the need for "conversion"
and the need for "forgiveness of sins" then allow me to
assure you that's EXACTLY what the Gospel of the Bible says.

Romans 9 talks about God CREATING (making) some men
to be "vessels of mercy" and other men to be "vessels of wrath".
Do you REALLY PRETEND those created as "vessels of wrath"
were MEANT to be saved? Really?

But HERE is just how totally BLIND you are...
You just sent me a question about Romans 11
Here is what Romans 11 says about men who are
NEVER MEANT to be saved.

Rom 11:8
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
slumber, eyes that they should not see, [never meant to see]
and ears that they should not hear

[never meant to hear]
unto this day.

Rom 11:10
Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see,
[never meant to see] and bow down their back alway.

You see (no, you probably can not see)
when the Bible says a man "MAY NOT" or "CAN NOT"
or "SHOULD NOT"... that is the SAME as saying that man
was NEVER MEANT to "see" or "hear" or "understand" or
"be converted" or "have their sins forgiven".

You really do CONTINUE to embarrass yourself when you
PRETEND the Bible does not CLEARLY TEACH some men
were NEVER MEANT to be saved. And "vessels of wrath"
are not the same as "vessels of mercy", whether you can
"see" this Biblical Truth or not.

Jim

FreeGrace2 · Jan 5, 2021

Spiritual Jew said:
This can all be settled by you simply showing me where it says Simon received the Holy Spirit.

Sure.

First, to establish the clear fact that Simon believed and was saved.

12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Now, the proof that Simon received the Holy Spirit:
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Any more questions?

The word "they" in v.17 refers to Simon, who believed and was baptized.

It should be clear that IF IF IF Simon had not been saved, Luke, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, would have made that clear.

Because all of them who were saved received the Holy Spirit.

That is true. And since there is no distintion between what Simon believed and the others, it is clear that he was saved and received the Holy Spirit.

If you can't do that then we're just going to have to agree to disagree and move on from this old thread already.

I've done it. All that's left is for you to believe what the Bible says. It is clear.

Now, if you are demanding a verse that specifically says that Simon recieved the Spirit, you're just asking for pie in the sky. The Bible isn't required to meet your demands as to what the Bible MUST SAY.

FreeGrace2 · Jan 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said: ↑ What the Bible NEVER says is that persons were "never meant to be saved", in spite of all the protestations. The words "never meant" don't occur EVER in the Bible.

5thKingdom said:
Why do you want to CONTINUE to embarrass yourself?

The Bible does not NEED to use the words "never meant" when it
uses the words "MAY NOT" or "CAN NOT" or "SHOULD NOT".

This claim is an embarrassment. When a person makes a bold claim about what the Bible SAYS, they'd better be prepared to prove their bold claim. Which you have NOT done yet. All you've done is make claims that you cannot prove or support.

I would be embarrassed to make such bold claims and then have to backtrack when challenged by saying "the Bible does not need to use the words "never meant...".

In fact, your red words "may not" "can not" and "should not" indicate ABILITY, not inability.

You see, words have MEANINGS.

They certainly do. I'd advise paying close attention to that fact, which hasn't been done yet.

When JESUS says a man cannot "be converted"
or "have their sins forgiven"... the MEANING of that is
those men were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" or to
"have their sins forgiven"

But that's not all He said. Look at the whole context. For example, the claim that "no man can be saved" must include context. Without context, the phrase would mean that no one EVER will be saved.

So, "no man can be saved" requires context. Here's the context: "unless he places his full faith/trust alone in Jesus Christ alone".

It seems you completely miss all this.

Spiritual Jew · Jan 5, 2021

FreeGrace2 said:
Sure.

First, to establish the clear fact that Simon believed and was saved.

12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

Now, the proof that Simon received the Holy Spirit:
14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria.
15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

Any more questions?

The word "they" in v.17 refers to Simon, who believed and was baptized.

It should be clear that IF IF IF Simon had not been saved, Luke, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, would have made that clear.

It's clear to me that Simon would not have offered to pay for the ability to lay hands on people so that they could receive the Holy Spirit if he had just received the Holy Spirit himself. That makes no sense. And Peter's harsh reaction to that shows that Simon's motives were not right and his faith was not genuine. He was only thinking about how this new thing he discovered could make his magic show even more popular and get himself even more praise. To think that someone with that kind of attitude believed the same as the others who did receive the Holy Spirit is just ridiculous.

That is true. And since there is no distintion between what Simon believed and the others, it is clear that he was saved and received the Holy Spirit.

Motives matter. What is in your heart matters. That you can't recognize that is unbelievable to me. His motives were not the same as the others and that was made clear by him foolishly asking to pay for a certain spiritual gift.

I've done it. All that's left is for you to believe what the Bible says. It is clear.

Now, if you are demanding a verse that specifically says that Simon recieved the Spirit, you're just asking for pie in the sky. The Bible isn't required to meet your demands as to what the Bible MUST SAY.

You've done nothing but give your opinions. And I disagree with your opinions. So be it. I'm moving on from this thread. I thought I had already moved on from it before and didn't even know it was still active but then I saw an alert and decided to check it out again. But, I'm done with it for good now. There's nothing more I can say about this that I haven't already said.

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
Your false "gospel" of synergism is EASILY refuted, not only by
the verses above (which contradict your theory), but by MANY
other passages. I will only focus on two (2) of them.

(a) Jesus clearly taught that some men (the elect) are GIVEN
the understanding of the Gospel [Mark 4:11] while other men
were NEVER MEANT to "perceive" or "understand" the Gospel,
or "be forgiven" or "have their sins forgiven" [Mark 4:12]

Since JESUS declares some men were NEVER MEANT to ever
"be converted" or "have their sins forgiven" that shows your
theory that salvation is due to some good work that men decide
to do... is just "another gospel" or pure heresy... and the Bible
PROMISES those preaching "another Gospel" and/or those
preaching HERESY "shall not enter the Kingdom of God"
[Gal 1:8-9 and 5:20]

The Bible makes it obvious that man has a role in his own salvation:

Acts 2:40 save yourselves
2 Corinthians 7:1 cleanse ourselves
Jude 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God
James 4:7 submit yourselves to God
2 Corinthians 13:5 examine yourselves whether you be in the faith
Romans 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey
1 Peter 1:22 you purified your soul
James 4:8 Cleanse your hands..... and purify your hearts
2 Timothy 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified

The above verses do not teach that man can save himself by himself, but man saves himself in the sense of obeying what God has required man to do to be saved. The old old example of one man is drowning and another man throws the drowning man a life life and tells the drowning man 'grab the life line and save yourself'. The drowning man grabs the line and is saved. He did not save himself by himself it took a life thrown to him (God sending Christ to die for man's sins) and him grabbing hold of the line (Christ saves those who obey Him Heb 5:9).

Galatians 1:8-9 not Galatians 5:20 say nothing at all about certain men being unconditionally predestined to be lost against their will. Those men who of their own free will that commit any of the sins of the flesh in Gal 5:19-21 will be lost. Being lost therefore is conditional upon the choice of men in choosing to sin or not and not something God unconditionally decides for men against their will. God has predetermined that whosoever commit such sins of the flesh will be lost but God does not choose which men against their will which men will or will not commit such sins and be lost.

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
That is just hilarious. You actually PRETEND that the WILL of
Pharaoh was MORE POWERFUL than the WILL OF GOD.
I honestly do not understand how you could ever say
such nonsense with a straight face.

LOL... the thing CREATED is more powerful than his CREATOR.
That is just hilarious. I could not make that heresy up if I tried.

You do not understand that God was always in control. Again, Romans 9:17 "For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth."

God raising up had a twofold purpose:
1) show His power in Pharaoh
2) maginify God's name throughout the earth

As I showed in that post, God would accomplish both things whether Pharaoh chose to obey God and let the people go or not. Had Pharaoh chose to obey and let the people go, God would accomplish 1 and 2. Yet Pharaoh of his own free will chose to disobey and God used the disobedience Pharaoh CHOSE TO DO to accomplish 1 and 2. So God was always in control and was going to accomplish His will, God using His permissive will simply ALLOWED Pharoah to decide how God would accomplish 1 and 2.

Note that Romans 9:17 does NOT say God raised up Pharaoh to violate Pharaoh's free will and cause Pharoah to disobey. Such would make God culpable of Pharaoh's disobedience....it would have God causing Pharoah to disobey then God punishing Pharaoh for the disobedience God forced Pharaoh to do. Such is senseless and an attack againt the Just, Holy nature of God.

This senseless act in having God cause men to do evil where God then punishes men for the evil God forced men to do creates a problem for Calvinist. Calvinist Professor Wayne Grudem in his book "Systematic Theology" (p.331) wrote the following: (my emp)

"In Spite of All of the Foregoing Statements, we have to come to the point where we confess that we do not understand how It Is that God can ordain that we carry out evil deeds and yet hold us accountable for them and not be blamed himself.

We can affirm that all of these things are true, because Scripture teaches them. But Scripture does not tell us exactly how God brings this situation about or how it can be that God holds us accountable for what he ordains to come to pass. Here Scripture is silent, and we have to agree with Berkhof that ultimately “the problem of God’s relation to sin remains a mystery"

The problem is Calvinsim ASSUMES "all these things are true, because Scripture teaches them".
Calvinism has failed to "prove" God ordained Pharaoh to disobey against his will but held Pharaoh accountable for the disobedience God forced Pharaoh to do. Things 'remain a mystery' to Calvinism due to its errors.

Issue raised:
Calvinism teaches the false notion men are born totally depraved therefore unable to obey God unless/until God "regenerates" them. If such were true, then Pharaoh would have had this depraved nature. Then there would have been no need for God to cause Pharoah to disobey against his will when that totally depraved nature would have already caused Pharoah to disobey. What purpose is there in God causing Pahraoh to disobey when Pharaoh's totally depraved nature was already going to cause him to disobey?

The facts are men are not born with a totally depraved nature, God does not cause men to disobey just so He can punish them... (Again why the need for God to cause men to disobey if man already has built in a totally depraved nature that will cause him to disobey)?

Man was created with free will, God allows man to use that free leaving man culapble for his own decision rather than God being culpable for what man does by forcing men to disobey agisnt their will.

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
However, that is the exact OPPOSITE of what the Scripture says,
that God "elects" people based ONLY on His Good Pleasure and
NOT because of anything they would do during their lifetime.

Eph 1:4-5
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him
in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Joh 1:13
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.

Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that sheweth mercy

Rom 9:11
(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth

Eph 2:8-9
For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.

None of the verses you cite remotely support Calvinisms false notion of unconditional election of certain individuals over other indidividuals.

First, such would make God a respector or persons when He is not, Acts of the Apostles 10:34-35.

Eph 4:4_5 says NOTHING AT ALL about God unconditionally electing individuals. Paul is writing about a GROUP ("Saints" and "faithful in Christ"). Verses 4 and 5 Paul lists certain traits (blessings) God predetermined and foreknew this group would possess with those traits being holy and with out blame and being sons of God. Those that are CONDITIONALLY IN HIM are the only ones to possess those triats. That simple phrase "IN HIM" makes being of the elect CONDITIONAL. Those that CONDITIONALLY choose to become a Christian are the ones that are placed IN HIM whereby then they can possess those foreknown triats that the group Christian possesses. There is no such thing in the NT of individuals UNCONDITIOANLLY possessing those foreknow traits while outside of Christ and not of the group Christian.

The BIble teaches corporate election (group Christian) and not unconditional election of the individual. Men can use their free will to become a Christian thereby becoming part of this elect foreknow, predetermined GROUP.

John 1:13 says men are born again by the will of God but there verse does NOT say man has no role himself in the new birth. Nicodemus had not been born again, Jn 3...was that Nicodemus fault or God's fault? If man has nothing to do in being born again and it is something God soley does, then JEsus should have criticised God for Nicodemus not being born again.

Romans 9:16 "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

God extended mercy to man in His plan of redemption for man by sending Christ to die on the cross for man's sins. God sent Christ to die NOT due to any "willing or running" on the part of man but sent Christ due to His mercy. So this plan of redemption did not come to man due to any "willing or running" on the part of man but this plan requires man to will (John 7:17; Revelation 22:17) and to run (1 Corinthians 9:24; Hebrews 12:1) in order to receive the benefits of that plan of redemption.

I notice how you simply cite various verses and ASSUME your ideas into those verses without giving any proof/explanation in how those verses support your assumption.

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
(1) That is the TYPICAL response of all Arminians since they cannot
actually refute Romans 3:10-12 with Scripture. How sad.

I am not Arminian, there are some things about Arminianism I do not agree with at all.

Romans 3:10-18 does not teach Calvinisms total depravity/original sin.

(1)
Why does Paul spend 2 chapters (Romans 2 &3) trying to convince those Jews they were sinners therefore no better than the Gentiles if those Jews already believed in the idea that that were born totally depraved sinners?? Why does Paul spend the first 3 chapters of Romans proving that all (both groups Jews and Gentiles) are sinners but does not even allude to the idea of total depravity/original sin?? Paul could have in one verse proven all are sinners in one verse by saying all are born totally depraved yet he does not. Not a better place or time to bring up totally depravity/original sin than if Romans chapters 1-3 but Paul does not even mention such idea for Paul nor those Jews believed in such an idea. I am curious, under the OT law which the Jews lived, all that was required was the physical birth into a family with Jewish lineage to Abraham to put one into a covenant relationship (salvation) with God. How can the physical birth AT THE SAME TIME put the Jew into covenant relationship with God (salvation) yet also mean the Jew was born a totally depraved lost, unforgiven sinner?
Isn't that like trying to argue that a light switch can be off and on AT THE SAME TIME?

(2)
the language Paul uses "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
There is a night and day difference between saying one is "gone out of the way" versus ASSUMING the verse says one is "BORN out of the way. "Becoming unprofitable" versus ASSUMING one is BORN unprofitable. Judas was not beon a sinner..he was not BORN a thief and betrayer but that is what he BECOME.

(3)
in connection with #2 above Paul wrote in Romans 7:8-9 ".... For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." In this verse Paul is speaking about what myself and others call an 'age of accountability.
---Paul is using the terms "dead" and "alive" to describe his spiritual status/state. If total depravit/original sin were true, then Paul never would have been "alive" until he became a born again Christian. But Paul speaks about being "alive" before he ever became a Christian.
--verse 8 ends with Paul saying "for without law sin was dead" then Paul says he was once "alive" without the law. So there was once a time in Paul's life he was "without law" meaning at that time "sin was dead" to him therefore he was "alive" spiritually. This would have been when he was a infant/small child without sin and not ameanable to God's law therefore being "without law" sin had no power over him. But as he matured learning right from wrong (Isaiah 7:15-16) he did become ameanable to God's law THEN sin sprang up in him. Therefore he was NOT born a spiritually "dead"a sinner with a totally depraved nature.

(4)
in connection with #3 in Romans 9:11Paul says "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)" Paul, as everyone else, was born a "clean slate" that is, born not a sinner, not righteous for not having any good or evil. Paul was born innocent. nuetral, born spiritually "alive" being "without law" but later matured intellectually learing right from wrong THEN became a sinner when sin later sprang up in him.

(5)
Again, look at some of the language Paul uses in Rom 3 "There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.....Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips.....Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness....Their feet are swift to shed blood". This language does NOT describe infants...infants are not able to "understand" or "seek" God for they do not developed the mental accumen to do so. THey are unable to talk, that is use their tongue to use deceit, they cannot talk so they cannot curse nor are they able to muder/shed blood. Infants are obviously not even in Paul's mind here.

5thKingdom said:
(2) But of course some men "seek the Lord" but ALL OF THEM
are being "drawn" by God. Or do you actually think JESUS
was LYING when He said [John 6] that NO MAN can come
to Him unless the Father first "draws them" and ALL MEN
the Father draws "shall come" to Him.

Assuming you do NOT think Jesus is a LIAR then you are
only saying that ALL MEN who seek God are those who
have already been "drawn" by God ("elected") and NONE
of them will be lost.

(3) But of course we agree that ALL MEN are commanded to repent
and "seek God" and we are told that MOST MEN will not do so,
because they were NEVER MEANT to "be converted" or to
"have their sins forgiven"... when you are talking about
Biblical doctrines you MUST include ALL RELATED verses.
You tend to select the verses you like and ignore the rest.
Which only results in false doctrines (heresies).

In Rom 3 Paul says none are righteous but Psalms 14:5 speaks of those that are righteous. Is this a contradiction? No, it could be that Paul is using the term "righteous" in an absolute sense, that is, none are perfeclt sinless in and of themselves apart from God and His word. Those as Abraham that were said to be righteous, God credited them righteousness due to their obedience to God's will. They were not perfectly sinless yet GOd did not require perfect sinlessness to be righteous but a simple obedient faith.

It could be that Paul was using a RAbbi teaching method called a midrash. Paul's point in ROm 3 was to prove the Jew was a sinner not better than a Gentile. So Paul goes to the OT and finds verses where men are said to be sinners and applies that verse to the Jews. For example, in Romans 3:13 Paul is quoting Psalms 5:8-10. David was SPECIFICALLY talking about his enemies and NOT mankind in general. Paul to make his point in Rom 3 took what was SPEICIFIC to a group (David's enemies) and used in a general sense towards all Jews. Paul also quotes Psalms 140:1-3 in Rom 3 yet Psalms 140 is SPECIFICALLY speaking about the evil man and the violent NOT ALL mankind in general. But Paul applies the SPECIFIC in Psa 140 to use it in a general sense towards the Jews in Rom 3.

What Is Meant by "Midrash"?
"In Judaism, the term Midrash (plural Midrasham) refers to a form of rabbinic literature that offers commentary or interpretation of biblical texts. A Midrash (pronounced "mid-rash") may be an effort to clarify ambiguities in an ancient original text or to make the words applicable to current times."

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
(4) What in the world makes you think Cornelius was not "elect"?
You are reading your own presuppositions into the TEXT.

(5) Let's be real here. You brush of MOST of what I say and then
you build heresy upon heresy... of course I cannot take MOST
of what you say seriously since it contradicts so many verses.

But... I will answer you directly if you want to give me the verse
you think I "brushed off" and your "interpretation" of the verse.

(6) For the same reason the SAME was said in the OT.
NO MAN (no, not even one) will ever "do good" or
"seek God" unless they are "elect" and God has
"drawn them"... this is the EXACT SAME thing that
Jesus taught [John 6] I have NO IDEA why you
think this is strange... since it is some of the most
BASIC and ESSENTIAL elements of the Gospel.

(7) But Paul ALSO speaks of those who are "righteous".
Your PROBLEM is that you CONFLATE those who are
"elected" or "saved" with all the "natural men" who
are not ABLE to act like the "elect".

Romans 1:16 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

The gospel is God's power unto salvation, yet when we are first introduced to Cornelius (Acts 10) he was lost not having heard the gospel, much less obeyed the gospel. 2 Thessalonians 1:8 in flamining fire God will have vengeance upon those who "obey NOT the gospel of Christ".

Therfore Cornelius was not of the "elect"...saved. I have dealt with Calvinists on other forums that try and claim one can be of the elect but not saved which has no Biblical basis. Nowhere in the NT is one said to be elect but not saved or saved but not elect....elect = saved.

Therefore at the beginnig of Acts 10 Cornelius was not saved, not elect notyet regenerated but able to do good, pray to God, etc while spiritually dead.

Acts 16:14 Lydia is said to have "worshipped God" BEFORE it is said the Lord "opened her heart".

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
The Bible separates all men into three (3) groups:
(1) the saved "wheat" in the church sown by God
(2) the unsaved "tares" in the church sown by Satan
(3) the lost souls OUTSIDE the church (also "children of Satan"

If you cannot discern the CONTEXT of the text
(which group is in focus) then you have no hope of ever
understanding the MEANING of the passage.

Just like the OT can say NONE will "seek God" or do any "good"
Paul can also correctly say NONE will "seek God" or do any "good"
Because IN BOTH CASES the TEXT is talking about "natural man"...
this is NOT difficult to understand (unless you are an Arminian)

Those in Acts 2 were lost, spiritually dead, unregenerate but they were able to hear and understand Peter's sermon, be pricked in the heart by it and believe and obey it all while "dead"

The Calvinist idea of total depravity and God first having to act upon the totally depraved before they are able to hear and undertand and obey is simply not in the context.

Butterball1 · Jan 6, 2021

5thKingdom said:
Rom 9:19-24
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?
For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I will be glad to follow-up on any questions you had on
#1-#8... but you will have to deal with #9 on your own
because GOD has already answered your complaint and
I cannot answer you better than God.

You make a LOT of assumptions about people who were LOST
and "sought God"... I will remind you that ALL MEN were LOST
before God "drew them" to Himself. So you have no argument
saying someone (like Paul) was LOST and COULD NOT go to God
(when God was "drawing" him"). You just ASSUME too much
incorrectly because you interpret TEXT within the system
of Arminianism.

Here... I will say it another way that maybe you can understand.
You are very safe to believe that ALL MEN who become saved
were FIRST "drawn" by God (that is what Jesus taught in Jn 6)
And you are very safe to say NO MAN can "seek God" unless
they are FIRST "drawn" by God (again what Jesus said in Jn 6)

Jim

Romans 9:19-21

Nothing in the context says God fashions men is some unconditional, capricious independant of man's obedience or lack thereof to God's will, Jeremiah 18:8,10 shows obedience to God's will is the basis God uses to either show mercy to a nation or not. In Ezekiel 25 God brought judgment against various nations. Note the jusgment was not due to some capricious, predetermination God made before the world began but due to this disobedience of those nations....again, God says in Jeremiah 18 "If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.....If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."

So God has a preset plan in how He deals with people/nations based upon the obedience or lack of obedience.

In God's dealing with the Gentile nation Nineveh, God showed mercy towards this unelect Gentile nation by sending them Jonah with a message and Nineveh obeyed (repented) therefore not destroyed in 40 days. We are told in Joanh 3:10 "And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."

If all has been predetermined before the world began, then what need would God ever have to "repent"? None. But God repenting shows God reacting to what Nineveh chose to do in repenting themselves, therefore God repented/changed His course of action in from destroying Nineveh (as He said He would in Jonah 3:4) to showing Nineveh mercy. Nineveh was in control of their own fate by choosing to repent or not, so what they did was by free will not predetermination.

Do you really believe that faith produces works?

Senior Veteran

Amillennialist

Senior Veteran

Amillennialist

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Amillennialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads