Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Can you show how anything can happen, to include any decision we make, apart from the Creator of all that is establishing the fact of it?
I don't know for sure what you're asking here and I don't want to make any assumptions. Can you clarify?
In the case of the non-elect, you believe that the only "decision" they can make is to reject God/Christ. That's not a real decision. A decision or a choice involves at least two viable options to choose from.
No, it is not. That makes no sense at all. You have people being made spiritually alive before they even have faith.
Wrong. You are blatantly contradicting Romans 1:18-21 which says that no one has any excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him. Your doctrine gives people an excuse for that because you say they can't help but suppress the truth in unrighteousness without ever repenting of that and can't help but not glorify God and not be thankful to Him.
No, it does not say that. You need to read ALL of scripture and not cause it to contradict itself. Your view of Romans 8 contradicts Romans 1. You need to make the effort to reconcile them both together instead of causing them to contradict each other. Paul said that no one has any excuse for not submitting to God. Your interpretation of Romans 8 gives people an excuse. You need to rethink your understanding of Romans 8.
You say they have no choice but to be at enmity with God which blatantly contradicts Romans 1:18-21 where Paul indicates that they have no excuse for being at enmity with God.
God is THE Creator. EVERYTHING that comes subsequent to God's creating, was a result of his creating, yes? Further, if God is Omniscient Creator, then he established, knowingly, that those things resulting of his creating would come to pass, no?
That is a false axiom. A decision or choice involves at least two options from which to choose. Only one need be viable.
What does "before" mean, in your statement? I've been saying, and showing from Scripture, that they will not, and indeed are unable, to choose God, while at enmity with him. Are you claiming that valid, salvific, faith does not please God? —after all, you are saying that the faith preceeds salvation, right? So you have faith, that pleases God, performed by a person at enmity with God, while still of the 'mind of flesh', before he is given a 'mind of the Spirit'.
HOW did they put their faith in Christ, while still God's enemies, and unable to please God?
"We do so because it is so", is the way I look at it. We do according to what God does in us. "For it is God who works in you both to will and to work according to his good pleasure." Philippians 2:13 There is no good in any of us but Christ, and the only good we can do is because of God doing it in us.
Nope. Your view of humanity's station in this context results in that assumption that "they cannot" means "they can't help it". But it is insisted, they DO choose, as Romans 8, again, states they are at enmity with God. That 'they cannot' is because they always will not. They CHOOSE not to, and that, willfully, always—even when they fool themselves into thinking they are submitting and casting themselves upon Him.
No? —what does it say, (and that in the context of the whole of Scripture)?
No, as I showed above, what Romans 8 says does not contradict Romans 1. But why would you choose Romans 1 as if it had more plain meaning, and Romans 8 needs a bit of finessing?
'Strawman' argument. I didn't say they have no choice. YOU extracted that from what Romans 8 does say.
Where does it mention unbelievers deciding to "have their minds set on what the flesh desires"? Do you honestly see yourself capable of doing anything in and of itself worthy of God's pleasure—his admiration and affirmation— apart from him doing it in you?
Does the command imply the ability to obey? Of course not. God shows us all the time we fall short of the standard. This is another form of the "Is-ought" problem. What we ought to do has no relation to our ability to do it. Can any of us be holy all the time? Do any of us truly love the Lord our God with all our heart and mind, and do we love our neighbor as ourselves?
I didn't say they have no choice. They always, willfully, choose at enmity with God. YOU extracted the notion that they have no choice out of what Romans 8 does say.
Yes. So? You need to communicate more clearly. What is your point here as it relates to the ongoing discussion?
That's complete nonsense. Whoever heard of such a thing? A decision or choice involving only one viable option? That's ludicrous.
You are not making any sense.
Are you being serious here? I have to explain what the word "before" means to you? I'm saying you believe people are made spiritually alive first and then after that they believe which means you have them being spiritually alive without faith before they have faith, which makes no sense.
You're not showing anything from scripture that supports your claims. You are causing scripture to contradict itself. In Romans 1:18-21 Paul clearly indicates that no one has an excuse for being at enmity with God. Your view gives them an excuse because you claim that they are unable to glorify God as God and be thankful to Him despite Paul saying that they have no excuse for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him. You need to stop making scripture contradict itself.
No, I'm not saying that at all. Why would my belief that faith precedes salvation indicate to you I'm somehow "claiming that valid, salvific faith does not please God"?
You are not understanding my view, so you're arguing with a strawman. Paul said that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God/Christ (Romans 10:17). What I'm saying is that someone who is at enmity with God can be persuaded to no longer be at enmity with God when they hear the word of God/Christ (the gospel of Christ). The gospel is powerful and can cut people to the heart. Why would you think that the same people that Paul says have no excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and for not glorifying God as God and being thankful to Him cannot be persuaded to stop suppressing the truth and stop being at enmity with God?
I follow your point and disagree with it completely. This is not a matter of me not understanding your view, but you definitely don't understand mine.
Where does scripture teach this? Stop making claims without backing them up with scripture. I will not take your word for anything.
More claims with no scripture. In John 1:12 Paul gives the order as faith first followed by becoming a child of God. We become a child of God when we are born of God. Being born of God is what you call regeneration and I call it that, too. So, what John 1:12 indicates is that we become born again/regenerated children of God after putting our faith in Christ.
Because they heard the word of God/Christ and were persuaded to repent and put their faith in Christ. The gospel is very powerful. As Paul said: "it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes" (Romans 1:16). Why would you think that there would be anyone who could not potentially be persuaded to believe in Christ after hearing the gospel? The same ones who have no excuse for suppressing the truth and for not glorifying God are not able to be persuaded to believe the gospel? That makes no sense.
There's some serious typical Calvinist/Monergist cherry picking going on here.
I agree completely, yet you probably thought otherwise because you don't understand what I believe. What God requires of us is not to prove that we are good enough. We're nowhere near good enough. Instead He requires us to humble ourselves and admit that we're not good and that we're sinners who need His mercy (Luke 18:9-14).
I believe God lays out the basis of His sovereignty and will with our capacity to decide within it.
Above is the last few posts in an ongoing discussion. You took what I said to imply that there is only one decision we can make, because of God changing our hearts. I pointed out that actually, we have two decisions constantly before us to make, in submission to God, or in rebellion to God. I then pointed out that any decision we make is a result of God's establishing it. You asked for clarification, so I clarified: If everything happens is because he established it, and so, my point, that we would not make that decision if God had not established that decision. Our will is subject to his.
Why is it ludicrous? Can you prove both (or however many) were actually viable? You cannot. Only one choice per choice ever does happen, and that, always according to God's plan, his "decree".
What did they chose? Well? What makes you think they could have chosen otherwise? If they had chosen otherwise, they would have chosen that, and not this. But they chose this. It has always been this way. It is not God who says that they could have. It is God who says that they should have, or that if this or that had happened (but it didn't) that they would have. God gives options from which to choose, and commands that we choose. We choose precisely what he always uses our choices to accomplish. Don't teach the possibility of chance governing outcomes. There is no such thing. But that is what you imply when you say there is always more than one viable option.
It might be worth adding, "...to me." at the end of such statements, or to say, "I'm not following."
Yes. There is 'before' in temporal sequence, and there is 'before' in causal sequence. They often coincide, but they don't mean the same thing. Ask any good modern physicist. Or, ask God.
You once again attribute to me what you think descends implicitly from what I said. It does not. These are not two separate events, in the common sense. But the ARE God's work upon us, not by our consent nor even by our consultation. He didn't consult us about our first birth. Wy should he consult us about becoming born again? Once again, HOW is the dead to do an alive thing, such as to have salvific faith??
Does Romans 8 not exactly prove what I'm saying? Yes, it does. Look below, too, for more scriptures to the same effect.
You need to stop drawing YOUR conclusions from what I said as if those conclusions were valid. They are not. The Romans 1 reprobate have no excuse. They always choose, and willfully, in enmity to God. Romans 8 shows how and why. Ephesians 2 shows how and why. 1 Corinthians 2 shows their categorical inability to even understand the Gospel. There is no need to add words to Romans 8 to keep it from contradicting Romans 1.
Because, I have to think you admit that Romans 8:8 is true, without embellishment—which says, "Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." You have a contradiction, from which you have to handle the text of Romans 8 rather violently, by adding the idea of "decision", which it does not mention nor imply. Instead, admit that faith that results from regeneration, rather than regeneration following self-engendered faith, makes the better sense. It is, after all, what the Bible teaches in Eph 2, if not derived from assumed notions of the great validity of personal decision.
They don't even recognize the spiritual truth of their depravity and enmity! 1 Corinthians 2:14, again. "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." Now, if by the Gospel God regenerates them, it is by the Spirit of God taking up residence within them. Thus they are changed at the core, born-from-above. Faith is a result of that, and not a prior cause of that EVEN IF IT COMES SIMULTANEOUS WITH THAT.
Ephesians 2:8,9 is very clear, because it is through faith we are saved, by grace. If by grace, then the faith through which we are saved is also gift of God. Not of works. And the sidling out from under the burden of that fact by saying that the act of receiving him is not a work, is disingenous, and doesn't answer the charge which is answered by Faith being a gift; The charge? —HOW can the mind of flesh, and not of the spirit accept the things of God, (such as the gospel).
And around we go again. Not that what you say there, even if you are right (and you are not) makes your larger point, that a person has faith before regeneration. Read John 1:13. Again.
To YOU it makes no sense. Say it with me... lol. Do you think the power of the Gospel operates without change of heart? What makes you think it is by persuading the mind of flesh, that cannot understand spiritual things, that one comes to believe salvifically?
Unlike your serious typical self-determinist cherry picking, I suppose? But I notice you didn't answer it. All you did was cast dispersion on it. That's a rather nasty tactic.
And....?
Ah! Turnabout is fair play, is it? What's sauce for the goose and all that! Ok, do you know what "work out your salvation" means? I don't think you believe one earns it, so what is it talking about? I say the same as before; we do according to our salvation. And in this particular sense, live according to it in all ways, or, as is called in theological terms, the 'Sanctification' following 'Justification'. That is at the root of Monergism. It is the justification that is done entirely by God, or it is not by Grace. Our cooperation there is of no effect on the validity or reality of what happened.
Our command, and what is required, is that we submit to Him, but there's no reason to think that we can do that while at enmity with Him. Do you honestly suppose that our cooperation is required for God to do as he will with us? We were made by him, through him and for him —not for ourselves. Apart from him we are nothing.
Did God force himself upon us in the first birth? Why would you call it 'force' when born again, when he raises us from death to life? Is there something endemically worthy about our fallen state that we should be allowed to pursue it, as though we only belong to ourselves?
Revelation 3:20 is not a salvation verse. Look at the context. It is talking to believers. That is FELLOWSHIP, which is the whole reason for God's CREATING us. See Rev 21 for more about Fellowship.
Mark Quayle said:
Then how can we generate valid faith, while still at enmity?
The question is not about proving we are good enough.
How can we humble ourselves while we always willfully choose not to submit (Romans 8)?
To purposefully have foreknowledge does not mean one cause what the person or persons do.If he is the cause for everything in existence, then he is also the cause for mankind's own choices.
Look up "foreknow", "foreknowledge", "foreknown", (and, in fact, the word, "know", in the Old Testament), in the Concordances. Too, consider the attributes of God. For him to foreknow involves his purposeful knowing. One might go so far as to say that he knows BECAUSE he causes. The Biblical use of "foreknowledge" goes beyond the mere modern English "to know".
Thayers Greek Lexicon says, "forethought, prearrangement": 1 Peter 1:2; Acts 2:23
Topical Lexicon: Definition and Key Idea
"The noun πρόγνωσις (prognōsis) denotes the prior knowledge and purposeful awareness of God that undergirds His sovereign actions in history. More than mere foresight, it is the personal, relational knowing by which God sets His redemptive plan in motion and lovingly fixes His regard upon His people before their existence in time."
Chat GPT-5 mini, concerning Cruden's Concordance:
Summary — Cruden on "Foreknowledge"
Exact verse references Cruden lists under "Foreknowledge" (as cross‑referenced to related headings)
- Cruden treats "Foreknowledge" mainly as God's prior, purposeful knowledge that undergirds election and providential action. He cross‑references Foreknowledge with Knowledge, Election, Predestination, Providence, and Counsel, and highlights verses where God’s prior knowledge is tied to his determinate counsel or purposeful decrees.
- Genesis 18:19
- Exodus 33:17
- Job 10:8–9
- Psalm 147:5
- Isaiah 46:10
- Jeremiah 1:5
- Amos 3:2
- Acts 2:23
- Acts 4:28
- Acts 17:26–27
- Romans 8:29
- Romans 11:2
- 1 Corinthians 8:3–4 (contextual cross refs)
- 1 Peter 1:2
- 2 Peter 3:9 (contextual)
- Revelation 13:8 (the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world" often cross‑referenced with foreknowledge/election)
Is it possible for a person’s name to be erased from the Book of Life? | GotQuestions.org
Is it possible for a person’s name to be erased from the Book of Life? When is a person’s name written in the Book of Life? Can a name be erased from the Book of Life?www.gotquestions.org
Is it possible for a person’s name to be erased from the Book of Life? - Answer The Bible
The concept of the Book of Life is found in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. It is first mentioned in Exodus 32:32-33, where Moses asks God towww.answerthebible.com
How does "What....God Knew About Us Before We Were Born" support your view more than mine? Romans 8: "29...whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..." Romans 9: "11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls..."
I understand _ individuals have different views.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Jesus said He would draw all people to Himself (John 12:32). He calls sinners, which all people are (Romans 3:23) to repentance (Mark 2:16-17). God offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11, Matthew 22:1-13). What don't you understand about this?
I already told you what I believe it means, so why are you asking me this question? Are you not reading everything I'm saying?
This is very vague. I wish you could learn to communicate more clearly.
That's what you say, but scripture says otherwise. You're not taking into account the power of the gospel here. You're talking about what is the case before the gospel is preached to someone. Of course, someone isn't going to decide to repent and believe out of the blue without hearing the gospel first. Without God speaking to their hearts first. But, what about when God speaks to people's hearts through His Spirit and the gospel is preached to them? They still can't submit ti God? Of course they can. The gospel "is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes". The gospel preached through the power of the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to persuade anyone to believe. But, the Holy Spirit can be resisted (Acts 7:51). There is so much that you don't even take into account and that just baffles me.
Of course! Hello? God never forces Himself upon someone. How can you not know that? In your doctrine it seems that you believe Jesus just opens the doors of certain people's hearts without knocking and asking people to open the door and comes in while gladly leaving the doors of everyone else's hearts shut. But, that is not what is taught in scripture.
Of course. If you think I thought otherwise, then you are not even trying to understand what I believe. But, that is true of everyone. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wants them to repent (Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 33:11). In your doctrine He is pleased to just allow them to die and does not want them to repent.
This is silly to compare spiritual birth to physical birth. It doesn't deserve a response.
No. That's where God's grace comes in. No one deserves anything, but God is love (1 John 4:8) and, because of that, He graciously offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11, Matthew 22:1-13). Your doctrine contradicts the character of God. In your doctrine God is partially love and partially hate.
Wrong. YOU need to look at the context. Not everyone in that church were saved believers. The verse refers to people who need to repent. People who Jesus figuratively said He was going to vomit out of His mouth if they didn't repent. People who are saved do not need to repent. People who have repented are saved. Jesus is talking to "anyone" there, as in anyone who needs to repent and who has not already let Him into their hearts. Why would He need to knock on the door of someone's heart who He is already dwelling in? You need to give this verse much more consideration than just saying it's not a salvation verse and brushing it aside with very little thought.
By way of having the truth revealed to us through the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit. When that happens, then we have to make a choice to either believe what we hear or reject it. The Jews Stephen preached to in Acts 7 rejected it and they resisted the Holy Spirit. God makes people responsible to choose how to respond to His call/offer/invitation to salvation.
We don't always willfully choose not to submit. That is your incorrect understanding of Romans 8 that results in you giving people an excuse for not repenting and believing when scripture like Romans 1:18-21 says there is no excuse for that. If God did nothing to persuade us to humble ourselves, then what you're saying would be true, but He does do that by way of talking to people's hearts by way of His Spirit and by way of the preaching of the gospel. You think God basically forces people to submit to Him by changing their hearts to be willing to submit to Him, but scripture never teaches such a thing.
This just makes no sense whatsoever. You believe that before God's changes someone's heart their only "choice" is to rebel against God. That's not a choice at all if they can't actually choose to not rebel. Then, you think that God changes certain people's hearts entirely by His own choice based on some unknown reason that only He knows. So, those people whose hearts He changed have no choice but to then repent and believe after He changes their hearts because you would say people repent and believe every time after He changes their hearts. So, where is there any actual human choice in any of this where a person can choose between two viable options? You have a strange understanding of what it means to make decisions and choices. It implies at least two viable options to choose from.
It's ludicrous because having only one viable option does not give you any choices to choose from. You just have one "choice" in that case without any possibility of making any other choice. Scripture never teaches that each person only has one viable choice to make in relation to salvation.
Are you actually reading everything that I'm saying? You keep asking me questions that I've already answered. The fact that God calls all people to repentance (Mark 2:16-17) because of wanting all people to repent and offers all people salvation (1 Timothy 2:3-6, Matthew 22:1-13) because of wanting all people to be saved implies that people have the ability to choose to either accept His offer by repenting and believing or to reject His offer.
No kidding. But, how does that mean they were not capable of making a different choice? You're not making any sense.
Yes, it is! That is implied by the fact that He offers salvation to them. He would not offer all people salvation if not all people were able to choose to accept it.
Huh? If He says that they should have, then that shows the reason that they didn't is because of their own poor decision to not repent when He commanded them to do so. It isn't because they were not able to do so. Otherwise, it makes no sense for God to get angry at people for not doing so and for Him to punish them for not doing so.
What? Where are you getting this from? Use scripture to back up your claims. Otherwise, I can only assume that you're just making things up.
Chance? I imply no such thing. Our choices are not left up to chance. Our choices are not based on flipping a coin. We have free will. We have the ability to reason. People make free will decisions about all kinds of things on a regular basis, including moral decisions. Yet, somehow they can't make a free will decision between two viable options of either repenting and accepting Christ or refusing to repent and rejecting Him?
Only if it wasn't obvious that I was saying it didn't make sense to me rather than saying it couldn't possibly make sense to anyone. But, I think it was obvious that I was saying it didn't make sense to me. Obviously, what you're saying makes sense to you and maybe to other Calvinists.
This is a completely invalid argument that I can't even believe you are trying to make. There is no basis whatsoever for comparing spiritual birth and physical birth in this way. Scripture never does this! Why are you doing it?
Your lack of understanding of what it means to be dead in sins is causing you to be confused. It does not have anything to do with "total inability" as you believe. It has to do with being separated from a relationship with God. Jesus said that sinners are spiritually sick and need the physician (Him) and He calls them to repentance (Mark 2:16-17). Do you think that sick people are not able to acknowledge that they are sick and need the physician to heal them rather than thinking they can heal themselves?
Where does scripture teach this? Show me.
Nowhere does scripture teach this.
By using their free will to do so. You are not understanding what this passage is saying. Your understanding of this passage forces you to not understand that becoming a child of God and being born of God are the same thing. How can anyone not yet be a child of God upon being born of God? In your view, someone is born of God and then they believe and become a child of God. That's not accurate. Verse 12 clearly indicates that faith precedes becoming a born again child of God. So, how can verse 13 be interpreted in order to not contradict verse 12? You make no attempt to determine that and instead you have to resort to believing that becoming a child of God and being born of God are not the same thing.
Not at all. You're not looking at the big picture here. You're only looking at it from the perspective of how things are when people are completely left to their own devices without any influence from God. You talk to me as if I'm saying that people just somehow decide randomly out of the blue one day to repent and believe in Christ without any influence from God. No. That's not what I believe. I believe that God reaches out to people by way of His Spirit and the preaching of the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16) and then people are then required to decide how to respond. Without God reaching out to people, they would not repent because they would be left unaware of their lost condition. But, once made aware of their condition, they then need to decide if they want to remain in that condition while not submitting to God and doing their own thing or if they want to submit to God.
If that is the only choice they can make then how can they not have any excuse for making that choice? That makes no sense. That would be like saying that someone can choose to not fly to the moon, but has no excuse for not doing so.
I'm not doing that. I'm explaining what the words mean in a way that doesn't contradict other scripture. Your interpretation of Romans 8 contradicts Romans 1, but you won't admit it.
You have to murder Romans 1:18-21 to make it so that people that Paul says have no excuse actually do have an excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and for not glorifying God and being thankful to Him (because they can't help it because of supposed "total inability"). I'm making an effort to keep scripture from contradicting itself and you are not. I'm not willing to interpret Romans 8:8 in such a way that gives people an excuse for something that Paul said earlier they have no excuse for. Why are you willing to do that?
No, it does not. Not when you look at all of scripture. That contradicts a great deal of scripture, as I've been showing
Why are you not differentiating between faith and works here? You are butchering that passage because of your doctrinal bias. Paul differentiates between faith and works. He said we ARE saved through faith, but ARE NOT saved by works. If faith was a work then we would not be saved through faith. Good works are what we do AFTER we have been saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:10).
Yeah, that's becoming a problem. I'm not interested in continuing to do that. We are both repeating ourselves at this point, so we should try to wrap this up. We obviously are very far apart in our beliefs in relation to this topic.
Look at you pretending to be a Greek expert, which I very highly doubt that you are. I'm not buying what you're selling here. The actual Greek experts who translated the Greek into English indicated that becoming a child of God is a result of one putting their faith in Christ.
Once again, your false understanding of scriptures like 1 Corinthians 2 is leading you astray. Nowhere does scripture indicate that unbelievers are not able to understand the simple gospel message. It only indicates that they cannot understand "the deep things of God". Paul spent a great deal of time trying to persuade people to believe the gospel (see Acts 17 and 18). Why would that be necessary if the way people believe is not by being persuaded by hours and days of preaching, but by a quick, one time event of God changing their hearts?
Ah, well, there are two calls: one, general, call that goes out to all who hear it (gospel preaching); and one, effectual, call that goes only to the elect, and that goes to the heart, not merely the ears.
We can found the answer to this in the Bible:
Good day,
