Adam and eve and Arminian Thought

[Ben johnson]

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us

Jesus taught that even the saved need forgiveness

That was my POINT. If we are REGENERATED UNILATERALLY, then we SHOULD be SINLESS; but if it is through our OWN BELIEF, then our "abiding in the Spirit or abiding in flesh-sin", remains our choice. Which do we reflect? Those who are perfect? Or those who are redeemed, iimperfect and occasionally sin, but abide in repentance and walk in righteousness? Which?

Was Paul saved? he had a "thorn in the flesh"?

We have no idea what that was. "Messenger from satan" --- might even have been a person...

I believe your stand on loosing your salvation come from a legalist view that if a saved man falls into persistent sin he will lose his salvation, it suggests a salvation by works not grace..
It suggests that it is necessary to grit ones teeth to stay saved.

There's no way you could have missed what "Responsible Grace" asserts. If man falls into PERSISTENT SIN, it reveals that he is NOT WALKING IN CHRIST (not repentant). It is not the SINS that condemn, but the HEART that DOES the sins. Jude says, "keep yourselves in the love of God" --- this is presented as POSSIBLE TO, or POSSIBLE NOT TO. If we "abide in Him, He abides in us"; if we "do NOT abide, then we are cast off as a branch, and ...burned." Jn15:4-6 Have I communicated it clearly this time?

We are not saved because we hate sin, we are not saved by anything but the grace of God, we can not keep ourself saved by any other means than Gods grace ..and not our works or our personal "holiness".

All true; and yet, we KEEP OURSELVES SAVED, as we KEEP OURSELVES IN HIS LOVE. See 1Tim4:16

 

[Ben johnson]

you've felt this need to "refute" what you call "once saved-always saved", as though it were some terrible nefarious thing that would bring damnation on any who believed it,

Not ANY, but SOME.

For the True Believer, it is a recognition of the keeping power of God (through faith). The True Believer realizes that he is kept by the power of God (through faith), and that anything he does is only by the enabling and empowering of God to that end (unless FAITH comes from HIS OWN heart). It has to do with yieldedness to the Holy Spirit. (very good)[/b] "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life that I now live, I live by the faith of (or from) the Son of God, who died and gave Himself for me." "Ye are bought with a price; Ye are not your own." This is what I see as a major problem, Ben.You are emphasizing almost exclusively the works of the believer. (faith/belief is NOT a WORK) Over and over again, you make a case for the believer 's efforts to maintain their salvation, to keep themselves, to make their calling and election sure, as though it was all up to the believer (not Ben's words, Peter's; and Jude's, James', Paul's, Jesus'...). Where's God in that? Where's the promises of God to keep, to protect, to preserve? I don't see it in what you say, Ben. (it's not that you don't see what BEN says, you don't see what PETER said; and what Paul said, James, Jude, Jesus...)

Those of us of the Reformed persuasion just shake our heads in incredulity at your outlandish and totally inaccurate attempts to "tell us" what we believe.

And how many times have we-of-Responsible-Grace heard, "YOU BELIEVE IN WORKS SALVATION"?

I could ask the same question of you. That's not the issue.

That IS the issue, NBF; if we are UNILATERALLY REGENERATED, then how come we SIN? Tell me, NBF --- what sets the LIMIT on how much a TRULY SAVED PERSON can sin? Obviously we do not DWELL in sin as the UNSAVED do, but it is equally clear that we DO sin. This shows that regeneration is RESISTIBLE. What do you think is the dynamic that LIMITS the sin, or KEEPS us in repentance? If regeneration is resistible (and it MUST be else we would NEVER sin), then why isn't REPENTANCE also RESISTIBLE?

forgiven on a sin by sin basis, sort of a “pay as you go” set-up?

Sins do not condemn ANYONE to Hell; conversely, lack-of-sins does not send ANYONE to Heaven. Sins expose a sinful heart --- sins demonstrate the lack-of-fellowship, lack-of-keeping-in-His-love, lack of repentance, that define "UNSAVED".

That we sin demonstrates God is RESISTIBLE; after the sin, repentance is EQUALLY resistible. We do sin --- if we repent (walk in repentance, abide in Him), we are forgiven. You cannot see the Scriptural basis for "those who WANDER FROM THE TRUTH and FALL FROM SALVATION." For instance, James5:19-20...

Convict??? There’s no way on God’s green earth that YOU can convict ANYONE of ANYTHING!!! That’s not your job!!!

Heh heh heh... you missed my dry humor, it appears...

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

You fail to see the contradiction here, NBF; if they are the ones that Peter described: "escaped the defilements" (albeit only APPEARING so), how shall we KNOW them? Why, they APPEAR to be ESCAPED...

This is hardly the parable to use to try to prove that believers can lose their salvation, Ben. Did the Prodigal ever cease being his father's son? Even when he was feeding slop to pigs? NO!!! He tried to count himself as not being a son any more, BUT HIS FATHER WOULD NOT HEAR OF IT!!!

I wanna hear you say the words (OK I wanna read the words you WRITE) --- tell Ben and everyone that a prodigal son who leaves and engages in drunkenness and fornication and carousing IS STILL SAVED DURING! Willing to say that???

As I said before: Game, Set, Match, nobdysfool.

Heh heh heh! We'll see...

 

[Received]

And how many times have we-of-Responsible-Grace heard, "YOU BELIEVE IN WORKS SALVATION"?

A dead horse beaten far too long.

Besides, you Calvinists seem to like tennis. Ugh, no wonder you're Calvinists

Next thing I know there'll be Aggie-Calvinists. So much the worse.

 

[nobdysfool]

Not ANY, but SOME.
And how many times have we-of-Responsible-Grace heard, "YOU BELIEVE IN WORKS SALVATION"?

Because, whether you admit it or not, you do....

That IS the issue, NBF; if we are UNILATERALLY REGENERATED, then how come we SIN? Tell me, NBF --- what sets the LIMIT on how much a TRULY SAVED PERSON can sin? Obviously we do not DWELL in sin as the UNSAVED do, but it is equally clear that we DO sin. This shows that regeneration is RESISTIBLE. What do you think is the dynamic that LIMITS the sin, or KEEPS us in repentance? If regeneration is resistible (and it MUST be else we would NEVER sin), then why isn't REPENTANCE also RESISTIBLE?

Here you demonstrate just how utterly little you know of Refomed theology. The regeneration by God "unilaterally" is of the heart, which enables the man to believe, repent and respond to the Gospel. The man still does the believing, repenting, and responding. Get that through your thick skull, Ben!!! You say the man does the believing, repenting, and responding, FIRST, and THEN God regenerates his heart. In effect you are arguing for man to have that ability while he is still dead in trespasses and sins. We say that God regenerates his heart so he CAN believe, repent, and respond, because those are things a spiritually alive man CAN do. A spiritually dead man has no capacity to do those things. All this time you've been arguing against something that Reformed/Calvinists NEVER SAY!! We do not argue that man is the one who believes, man is the one who repents, and man is the one who receives Christ. I know of no Calvinist who has said otherwise, and I certainly have never said so.

What you and I disagree on is HOW the man comes to be able to do that.

We are not saying that God "forces" man to do anything. In order for you to put distance between you and me, you keep insisting that Calvinists are saying that, and that is an utter falsehood! Two conclusions are possible: either you are deliberately stating falsehoods about Calvinism, which is a sin, or you are ignorant of Calvinism, which is lamentable, but not a fatal flaw, and one that can be corrected.


However as you well know we are still living in a body subject to sin, subject to temptation, and corruption. What has changed is the heart. You are setting up a false dilemna by stating that Unilateral Regeneration (by God) means that the man cannot sin. That is obviously and demonstrably false, and Calvinism does not teach that. Neither does the fact that man still sins after regeneration indicate that regeneration is resistable, because regeneration of the heart and committing sin are not equivalent things. If a man sins after regeneration, he's not resisting regeneration, he's yielding to sin. The resistance is of his flesh to ceasing from sin, not of his heart resisting salvation. Saying that 'regeneration is resistible, or we would never sin' is proof that you don't understand either regeneration or sin, or you wouldn't make such a ludicrous, illogical statement.

Sins do not condemn ANYONE to Hell; conversely, lack-of-sins does not send ANYONE to Heaven. Sins expose a sinful heart --- sins demonstrate the lack-of-fellowship, lack-of-keeping-in-His-love, lack of repentance, that define "UNSAVED".

That is not true. Man is born a sinner. He sins at his earliest opportunity. he is deserving of hellfire because not only is he a sinner, he sins because he is a sinner.

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.(Rev 21:8)
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. (Pro 8:36)

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Eze 18:20)

And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)

People most certainly will go to Hell for sinning! The only ones who "lack-sinning" are the righteous, and they most certainly will go to Heaven. Righteousness is ONLY by faith in Christ. God has set it so.

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. (Gal 3:22)

That we sin demonstrates God is RESISTIBLE; after the sin, repentance is EQUALLY resistible. We do sin --- if we repent (walk in repentance, abide in Him), we are forgiven. You cannot see the Scriptural basis for "those who WANDER FROM THE TRUTH and FALL FROM SALVATION." For instance, James5:19-20...

You seem to be quite adamant that you must be able to resist God. Somehow, that's a trait I wouldn't want to cultivate. What's the deal with dwelling on God, sin, and repentance being resistible? Why would that be a good thing??? Why are you making such a big deal about it? Resisting God is a very foolish, self-hating thing to do...

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (Rom 13:2)

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.(Jam 4:6)

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins. (Jam 5:19-20)

That's just what I've been trying to do, Ben...

Heh heh heh... you missed my dry humor, it appears...

Sorry, I don't see teaching error as a laughing matter...maybe it's just me...

You fail to see the contradiction here, NBF; if they are the ones that Peter described: "escaped the defilements" (albeit only APPEARING so), how shall we KNOW them? Why, they APPEAR to be ESCAPED...

Apparently you missed (or chose to ignore) what I said about fruit. Fruit is not their words, nor is it their appearance. Those things can be faked, can be manipulated, can fool even the most spiritual. Fruit is the result of their actions. THAT'S how you know them.

I wanna hear you say the words (OK I wanna read the words you WRITE) --- tell Ben and everyone that a prodigal son who leaves and engages in drunkenness and fornication and carousing IS STILL SAVED DURING! Willing to say that???

The attitude of his father never changed, despite what the son did, DID IT??? Was the son still a son in the eyes of his father? Was He?Did his father condemn him when he returned, contrite, confessing his sins, and submitting himself to his father's wrath?Well, did he?

Herein is the Mercy and Grace of God shown to us, that even when we sin, we are still His, and He still loves us. Our sin is covered even as we commit it, because of Christ. As Christians, even backslidden, nothing can separate us from the Love of God.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (Who, indeed? ) He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 8:31-39)

 

[michael servetus]

He Ben dude,

Why are you dis'n nobodysfool? He sounds like a rightous dude!

 

[Ben johnson]

He Ben dude,

Why are you dis'n nobodysfool? He sounds like a rightous dude!

Hi, Michael. Please show me how I am disrespecting NBF, and I will work in changing.

 

[Ben johnson]

The regeneration by God "unilaterally" is of the heart, which enables the man to believe, repent and respond to the Gospel. The man still does the believing, repenting, and responding.

Nbf --- I can see that you are angry; it was never my intent to cause anger in you. There are always three possibilities in discussions --- resolution towards ONE view, resolution towards the OTHER, or IMPASS --- agreeing to disagree. It is the desire of my heart that only love prevails, that regardless of the resolution God will be glorified and honored.

Just a simple question, NBF --- If God does the regeneration, and man does the believing, how many of those God regnerated, believe? What percentage? It is my understanding of Calvinism that 100% of the regenerate believe. (And of those who are NOT regenerated, none believe --- 0%). This is my failure, NBF; I dont' know how to respond to you. If God regenerates only the ELECT, and 100% of those He has regenerated BELIEVE, then how is it that their "belief" is not caused by God? (But if I say things like "belief-caused-by-God" it seems to make some angry...)

That is not true. Man is born a sinner. He sins at his earliest opportunity. he is deserving of hellfire because not only is he a sinner, he sins because he is a sinner.

It is also my perception that you and I have perfect agreement on the fact that "we are saved by grace through faith, not by deeds". If good-deeds or sinlessness do not save us, then sins do not condemn us; Jesus said "unbelief condemns" --- it is my understanding that sins demonstrate an unbelieving, unsaved heart.

The attitude of his father never changed, despite what the son did, DID IT??? Was the son still a son in the eyes of his father? Was He? Did his father condemn him when he returned, contrite, confessing his sins, and submitting himself to his father's wrath?Well, did he?

Herein is the Mercy and Grace of God shown to us, that even when we sin, we are still His, and He still loves us. Our sin is covered even as we commit it, because of Christ. As Christians, even backslidden, nothing can separate us from the Love of God.

I just can't understand how the son could be saved WHILE he was frequenting prostitutes and drunkenly carousing. Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will perish" --- the prodigal did not repent until verse 17...

You know that I see Luke15:11-13 as parallel to 2Tim2:11-14. God will NEVER leave US, nor forsake US (Heb13:5, Rom11:29); but you know that I understand "we can forsake Him".

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself." 2Tim2:13

Shall we continue, NBF? Or is it time to shake hands and agree to disagree, and go treat each other to root-beer-floats???

 

[nobdysfool]

Nbf --- I can see that you are angry; it was never my intent to cause anger in you. There are always three possibilities in discussions --- resolution towards ONE view, resolution towards the OTHER, or IMPASS --- agreeing to disagree. It is the desire of my heart that only love prevals, that regardless of the resolution God will be glorified and honored.

If I am angry, it is because I am growing tired of having to wade through a lot of false, mis-informed, and totally untrue ideas about the Reformed/Calvinist position. I try to present my case in a clear, straightforward and logical manner, only to see it twisted, misunderstood, and repeated back to me as something totally other than what I said, or was my intent. And not only me, but others, too. My reason for engaging here is to speak against errors in reasoning, and errors in interpretation of scripture that prevent people from growing in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. There is tremendous freedom and blessing in the Truth. I am not attacking you personally, Ben, I am attacking the falsehoods about the Reformed/Calvinist position, and attempting to answer the questions that arise from your theology, which I consider to have some serious errors in reasoning and understanding of scripture, not because you are incapable of rational thought, but because your theology is built on false assumptions about Calvinism, and incorrect understanding of certain scriptures.



If your theology is based on refuting things that do not exist, what does that say about your theology? Truth cannot be built on lies, or nonexistent foundations.



I really want to encourage you to read and learn about Reformed theology and Calvinism, not from others who reject the theology (biased viewpoint), but from the Reformers themselves, like John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion”, and the “Canons of Dordt”. It will be time well spent. Luther would be another good one.

Just a simple question, NBF --- If God does the regeneration, and man does the believing, how many of those God regnerated, believe? What percentage? It is my understanding of Calvinism that 100% of the regenerate believe. This is my failure, NBF; I dont' know how to respond to you. If God regenerates only the ELECT, and 100% of those He has regenerated BELIEVE, then how is it that their "belief" is not caused by God?

The misunderstanding, as I see it, is in you assuming that unilateral regeneration MUST force man to believe. God doesn’t unilaterally regenerate a man’s heart to force him to believe, but to enable him to believe. The fact that the regenerated heart chooses 100% of the time to believe is not due to God forcing it upon the man, but because the man, when faced with the Truth, wants to believe. It’s the only option that makes sense! If you can ignore the Mafia undertones, God “makes the man an offer he can’t refuse”. My brother (an ordained minister) puts it this way: “God gives the man a divinely-granted moment of sanity”. The man still does the believing, the repenting, and the receiving of Christ, because that’s what he wants to do. There has been a change in his desires, his view of himself, and his view of God, a change he could neither bring about himself, nor would he seek to do so. Theoretically the man could still refuse, but when God shows him his true condition, and how to be rid of it, Why would he refuse??? Survival is hard-wired into us, and this is certainly a matter of survival, spiritually. Besides, why do you view it as a negative thing if God unilaterally chooses to deal with any given person that way? That is His Mercy and Grace in action! That’s a good thing!

It is also my perception that you and I have perfect agreement on the fact that "we are saved by grace through faith, not by deeds". If good-deeds or sinlessness do not save us, then sins do not condemn us; Jesus said "unbelief condemns" --- it is my understanding that sins demonstrate an unbelieving, unsaved heart.

Yes, we agree that we are saved by grace through faith, not by works or deeds. But sin is not the result of unbelief, but the cause of it. Unbelief is not the disease, but a symptom of the disease, which is sin. We are born into this world as sinners, which automatically puts us at enmity with God. Man sins because he is a sinner, and cannot change it. We are all born sinners because we were in Adam when he sinned, we were in Adam when that sin was imputed to him by God, and we were in Adam when judgment for sin was pronounced by God. The Judgment is for sin, not unbelief. The only way to be free from sin is belief in Christ, which requires a change in the heart, something that no man can do by himself, or on his own. It must be done by God, hence, unilateral regeneration. To walk in faith (belief) with God, you must be in agreement with Him, and no sinner can ever be in agreement with God, while he is yet a sinner.



God looks on the intents of the heart, not the results of works and deeds. Man judges works and deeds by the results they produce, but God judges works and deeds by the heart condition of the one doing them. A sinner cannot produce good works in God’s sight, no matter how good the results of those deeds are for other men or for the man himself. The sinner’s heart taints everything that he does, thinks and says. Everything that a sinner does is either the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, or the boastful pride of life, all of which are sin in God’s sight. It’s a false dichotomy to say that if good works don’t save us, sin does not condemn us. It is for sin that we were condemned, and we are created for good works, but ONLY in Christ. There is no righteousness apart from Christ, none that is acceptable to God.

I just can't understand how the son could be saved WHILE he was frequenting prostitutes and drunkenly carousing. Jesus said, "unless you repent, you will perish" --- the prodigal did not repent until verse 17...

You must be careful not to take the parable too far, as it’s only a parable. Parables can be used to illustrate a point of theology, but they never take the place of theology. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, even while the prodigal was off drinking and carousing, he was still his father’s son, and his father never viewed him otherwise. The father never lamented anything but the loss of the physical presence of his son. He received him home with open arms, and all the benefits of sonship. So it is with Christians who wander away from the Father. No matter what they do, no matter where they go, they are still sons of the Father. Should they die while “backslidden”, they will suffer the consequences of their sins physically, but their soul will be saved, even as if by fire. Sin does have consequences, including physical death, but in Christ, they do not have the same consequences as for the unsaved, because Christ has already taken the punishment for those sins.



The one thing I see that is quite telling, is the attitude of the other son, the faithful son who never left. He would judge his brother much more harshly than his father does, and so it is with many in the Church today. They would judge a prodigal much more harshly than God does, and are actually jealous of the attention and care with which the Father receives back a wayward son. This is the attitude I see at work in your thinking, Ben. You would judge a prodigal more severely than God Himself, and would banish the prodigal to outer darkness, merely for being a prodigal.



Having been a prodigal myself, I take great comfort in knowing that even while I let go of God, He never let go of me, and the misery that I suffered was my own doing, because while I tried to blame it on anything and everything other than myself, I had no one to blame but myself for walking away. When I came back, the Father received me, blessed me, and confirmed to me His Love, and I have spent time learning about God’s care for His own, and how those that are truly born of God can never be lost. Those that walk away and do not come back were never saved in the first place, because God will always bring back His own.



You say that the prodigal did not repent until verse 17, which is a way of saying that you believe that until he repented, he had lost his salvation. Repentance does not save you, or anyone Ben, ONLY FAITH saves you, faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Prodigal did not lose his sonship, he only denied it and chose to squander the benefits on that which does not satisfy. Even the prodigal’s repentance was not enough for his brother, but it was more than enough for his father, who had ALREADY forgiven him, even before he returned.

You know that I see Luke15:11-13 as parallel to 2Tim2:11-14. God will NEVER leave US, nor forsake US (Heb13:5, Rom11:29); but you know that I understand "we can forsake Him".

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself." 2Tim2:13

In light of what I have said above, you might get a slightly different understanding out of that verse now…..I know I do!

Shall we continue, NBF? Or is it time to shake hands and agree to disagree, and go treat each other to root-beer-floats???

I think we should, for the benefit of those who are watching and reading. I have never believed that “agreeing to disagree” is appropriate for questions of theology, because the subject is too important. For matters of personal preference, it’s fine. This isn’t a matter of personal preference.



Besides, I hate root beer….

 

[michael servetus]

Hi, Michael. Please show me how I am disrespecting NBF, and I will work in changing.

It looks as if you are twisting his words in oreder to make your point. Seems wrong man...

 

[nobdysfool]

There are always three possibilities in discussions --- resolution towards ONE view, resolution towards the OTHER, or IMPASS --- agreeing to disagree. It is the desire of my heart that only love prevails, that regardless of the resolution God will be glorified and honored.

As a point of order, can it be proper to "agree to disagree" about God's Truth? How is God honored if His Word is not? How is God glorified if the resolution reached does not honor His Word in Truth? It's one thing if it is a minor point, like eating meat, or whether or not a Christian should drink alcohol, but quite another when the subject is salvation, and the security of the Believer.

As I see it, our disagreement boils down to this: What causes a man to believe? Does God regenerate his heart so he CAN believe, or does man believe on his own, essentially pulling himself up by his own bootstraps to a place where God will regenerate him? Either way the man is doing the believing. All else we talk about flows from a right understanding of this crucial fact.

So the underlying question becomes this: is man completely unable to believe savingly apart from God first regenerating his heart so he CAN believe, or can man, by an act of his own will, by his own decision, choose to believe and thus gain regeneration of his heart by his own action? On the one hand, you say that God regenerating man's heart so he CAN believe is God FORCING the man to believe, and on the other I say that man acting by his own will to believe is man FORCING God to regenerate him.

The idea of FORCE is wrong. Enabling someone to do something is not forcing them to do that thing, not when it is the one enabled who must then do that thing. Encouraged, yes. Man is spiritually dead, meaning he is unresponsive to spiritual things, the same as physically dead means unresponsive to physical things. Believing in Christ is something that only spiritually alive people can do. In order to believe savingly the man must first be made alive spiritually. He cannot believe in Christ savingly otherwise.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14) KJV

and the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are foolishness, and he is not able to know them , because spiritually they are discerned; (1Co 2:14) YLT

This is the proof. The natural man is man as he is born, unsaved, and unregenerate. He cannot understand spiritual things, because he has no capacity to do so. Spiritual things are foolishness to him. Gibberish. An unknowable foreign language. In order for him to understand spiritual things, God must regenerate his heart, making him alive spiritually, so that he can hear and understand the spiritual words of the Gospel. The Gospel message is so compelling, so desirable to the newly regenerated spiritual man, that he quite readily believes, and receives. No force involved, it is completely what the man wants to do. It is all he wants to do. It is like food to a starving man, water to a thirsty man. In order to drink of the Living Water, he must be made alive to be able to drink. You don't have to force a starving man to eat food when you set it in front of him. God doesn't have to force the newly regenerated heart to believe, believing is what it is designed to do. The regenerate heart naturally believes the Gospel, just as the unregenerate heart naturally rejects the Gospel.


Are you with me so far?

 

[Ben johnson]

It looks as if you are twisting his words in oreder to make your point. Seems wrong man

It is good that you changed the "country-flag" to Spain; Servetus was from Spain.

But I'm surprised at the choice of name --- I would have thought that "Servetus" and the whole "execution-thing" would have been distasteful to a strong Calvinist.

 

[Ben johnson]

Besides, I hate root beer….

WHAT?!?! Pizza without ROOTBEER??? Can't imagine that...

NBF, do you unerstand that I am not "REFUTING CALVINISM", but rather "ASSERTING RESPONSIBLE-GRACE"? I feel like I often "tread on eggshells". The Reformed view is that "God regenerates the Elect's hearts, WITHOUT their asking or consent; they are too depraved to even CONSIDER receiving Jesus BEFORE God unilaterally and unasked changes their hearts. Once the hearts are changed, then INVARIABLY - UNAVOIDABLY - IRRESISTIBLY (words Calvinists have used THEMSELVES) the belief flows, the perseverance flows, the faith flows FROM that regenerated heart."

But if I say, "Regeneration CAUSES belief" you all seem to get MAD. If I say "salvation is IMPOSED or FORCED or COMPELLED" you all get MAD. How is it that a HEART-CHANGE can be ACCOMPLISHED without permission, without the person asking, without any choice whatsoever of the person --- but it is NOT "forced or compelled or imposed"? "Force/compel/impose" simply means "doing something to them without their consent".

The idea of FORCE is wrong. Enabling someone to do something is not forcing them to do that thing, not when it is the one enabled who must then do that thing. Encouraged, yes.

If God makes the decision about our salvation, and 100% of those He chooses WILL be saved, and 100% of those He neglects WILL NOT, then there is no reason not to use terms like "forced" or "compelled" or "imposed". It is not enough to say that "a man's will CHANGES to WANT to follow God" --- the man certainly had no choice IN that changed-will or IN that want.

Believing in Christ is something that only spiritually alive people can do. In order to believe savingly the man must first be made alive spiritually. He cannot believe in Christ savingly otherwise.

Can you demonstrate Scripturally that "salvic-belief requires first being made alive spiritually"? Or that "only elect are sincerely called, and/or equipped to answer that call"?

Jesus said, "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..." You say, "you take that parable too far"; but He said it, "the kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..." There was a call to the FEAST; some came, some refused. There is no difference between the call to the CAME, and the call to the REFUSED; there is nothing in there that says "the king had anything to do with who CAME and who REFUSED." What was the POINT of the parable? Why did Jesus TELL it? Look to the entire CONTEXT, NBF. In Matt21, Jesus tells of two sons; one agrees to DO the father's wish, but DOES NOT; the other refuses but afterwards changes and does. Which did the will of the father? Jesus says, "tax-men and harlots will get to Heaven BEFORE you. BECAUSE John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but the tax-men and harlots DID believe; and YOU won't even feel REMORSE!" Who was "ELECT" here? Who? No one. The Jews were BLASTED for their unbelief, the sinners lauded for their belief. Belief causes election, NBF; election does not cause belief.

Next in ch21, is the parable of the LAND-owner; where the servents rebelled and killed the king's messengers; then the king sent his SON, and they even killed his SON! (This is UNDENIABLY reflecting His OWN CRUCIFIXION!) Jesus said, "THEREFORE the kingdom of God will be taken away from you; BECAUSE you have rejected the very cornerstone; he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter like the dust." Can you deny that Jesus was berating them for DISBELIEVING? Why would he berate the UNELECT for doing what they COULD NOT AVOID? No, he is condemning them for CHOOSING not to BELIEVE.

In the parable of Matt22:2-14, how many people were NOT INVITED? Can you name ONE? Is there any reason given why they refused? One prefered going to his farm, another had MORE PRESSING BUSINESS. So, everyone in the streets were invited. Everyone, NBF, everyone. No one was missed, according to the parable. Those who REFUSED, "were not worthy"; there is nothing that hints their "unworthiness" was decided by the KING, it was all about their REFUSING the invitation. (Contrast this with Acts13:46, "you JEWS count YOURSELVES unworthy")

Further strength in this thought is given in vs11; one man CAME, but REFUSED the clothes; THIS is the person you say "only accompanied but never really believed" (he was WITH them but never OF them). It was the KING who decided not to give him the clothes --- right? No; the man refused them himself. He was there in BODY, but his HEART was not there! How much percent was the parable about the KING'S CHOICE, and how much percent was it about EVERY PERSON'S DECISION? Where is the election in that?

"For many are called, but few are chosen" --- to insert a dogma that says, "only those who were FEW-CHOSEN-ELECT-BY-GOD" --- denies the context, NBF; there is NO difference between the call of those who WERE chosen, and the call of those who were NOT. Those who refused --- they just didn't WANT to. Those who accepted --- they wanted to; entirely of their own choice. Nothing of the KING.

Jesus would not have said any of these parables, if He really believed in election. There was COMPLETE VOLITION in the two sons, COMPLETE VOLITION in the vineyard, COMPLETE VOLITION in the feast-invitations...

This is the proof. The natural man is man as he is born, unsaved, and unregenerate. He cannot understand spiritual things, because he has no capacity to do so. Spiritual things are foolishness to him. Gibberish. An unknowable foreign language. In order for him to understand spiritual things, God must regenerate his heart, making him alive spiritually, so that he can hear and understand the spiritual words of the Gospel.

You know what? Believing in Jesus is NOT a SPIRITUAL THING that's limited ONLY TO THE REGENERATED! I oughtta know. I was there. I was not regenerate, and I knew it. But I was fully capable of hearing about Jesus. I heard about evolution, and Special Creation; I found millions of times more credibility in design rather than chance. Billions. Trillions. Reprobate that I was, I came to Him and asked: "Are You real? Do You want Me?" Jeremiah says, "if you seek Me you will FIND Me, if you search with all your heart". He did reveal Himself to me; and I believed. It was THROUGH THAT BELIEF, that received Him into my heart, that I BECAME spiritual, NBF.

A non-spiritual-man can hear about Jesus, and can believe. There is nothing in Scripture that denies this. Through that belief he becomes spiritual, and understands spiritual things.

The Gospel message is so compelling, so desirable to the newly regenerated spiritual man, that he quite readily believes, and receives.

Reality and Scripture deny this. Look at what I just quoted from you, and now read Rom10:14-15: "How shall they BELIEVE in whom they have not heard? How shall they HEAR without a preacher?" Think about that, NBF --- without a preacher they WON'T BELIEVE! If they had been DIVINELY REGENERATED, FIRST, then God would have found SOME WAY for them to have HEARD, or they would have believed ANYWAY. Paul plainly says "without a preacher they WILL NOT BELIEVE. So it is PREACHING that causes conviction/belief that causes regeneration; it is NOT regeneration that "leads to conviction/belief".

Without a preacher, HOW CAN they believe?

Without a preacher, HOW CAN they be elect?

How many African natives, and South American natives were saved BEFORE preachers came? What percentage? None of them believed. Why? Because they hadn't HEARD. Did God CHANGE His election-will, to ACCOMPANY the missionaries? For centuries before missionaries came, God conveniently UNELECTED all of them? Does that make sense?

"Without a preacher, how CAN they believe?" Certainly not by election...

 

[nobdysfool]

WHAT?!?! Pizza without ROOTBEER??? Can't imagine that...

Pizza and Pepsi...that works for me!

NBF, do you unerstand that I am not "REFUTING CALVINISM", but rather "ASSERTING RESPONSIBLE-GRACE"? I feel like I often "tread on eggshells". The Reformed view is that "God regenerates the Elect's hearts, WITHOUT their asking or consent; they are too depraved to even CONSIDER receiving Jesus BEFORE God unilaterally and unasked changes their hearts. Once the hearts are changed, then INVARIABLY - UNAVOIDABLY - IRRESISTIBLY (words Calvinists have used THEMSELVES) the belief flows, the perseverance flows, the faith flows FROM that regenerated heart."

But if I say, "Regeneration CAUSES belief" you all seem to get MAD. If I say "salvation is IMPOSED or FORCED or COMPELLED" you all get MAD. How is it that a HEART-CHANGE can be ACCOMPLISHED without permission, without the person asking, without any choice whatsoever of the person --- but it is NOT "forced or compelled or imposed"? "Force/compel/impose" simply means "doing something to them without their consent".
If God makes the decision about our salvation, and 100% of those He decides WILL be saved, and 100% He neglects WILL NOT, then there is no reason not to use terms like "forced" or "compelled" or "imposed". It is not enough to say that "man's will CHANGES to WANT to follow God" --- he certainly had no choice IN that changed-will or IN that want.
Can you demonstrate Scripturally that "salvic-belief requires first being made alive spiritually"? Or that "only elect are sincerely called, and/or equipped to answer that call"?

Ben, I am puzzled by the underlying tone of your questions. It seems that you view God doing for us that which we cannot do for ourselves as something evil and nefarious, rather than seeing it as the Mercy and Grace of a God who set His love on those whom He has chosen. You sound as though you believe that such actions on His part robs you of something! It looks as though you would try to cast what I say in terms that are objectionable and offensive, rather than truly consider what I am saying.

Jesus answered and said to him, Truly, truly, I say to you, Unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (Joh 3:3) MKJV

And John answered and said, A man can receive nothing unless it is given to him from Heaven. (Joh 3:27) MKJV

He who believes on the Son has everlasting life, and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him. (Joh 3:36)MKJV

Also you--being dead in the trespasses and the sins, in which once ye did walk according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all did walk once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath--as also the others, and God, being rich in kindness, because of His great love with which He loved us, even being dead in the trespasses, did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,) and did raise us up together, and did seat us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus, (Eph 2:1-7) Young's Literal Translation

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8-9)MKJV

No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44) MKJV

And He said, Because of this I said to you that no one can come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father. (Joh 6:65) MKJV

But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1Co 2:14)

I could go on and on. Scripture clearly teaches that while the man believes, it is God who enables him to believe, who draws him to Christ, who made us to live WHILE we were dead in sin, that coming to Christ is a gift given by the Father, and that unless we are born again, we cannot even see (percieve, know, or understand) the Kingdom of God. A natural man cannot understand the Kingdom of God, and cannot receive spiritual things, one of which is the Gospel. A natrual man has no capacity to understand spiritual things, and cannot receive them while stil a natural man. That is why God must regenerate the heart first, so the man CAN receive.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..." You say, "you take that parable too far"; but He said it, "the kingdom of Heaven is LIKE..." There was a call to the FEAST; some came, some refused. There is no difference between the call to the CAME, and the call to the REFUSED; there is nothing in there that says "the king had anything to do with who CAME and who REFUSED." What was the POINT of the parable? Why did Jesus TELL it? Look to the entire CONTEXT, NBF. In Matt22, Jesus tells of two sons; one agrees to DO the father's wish, but DOES NOT; the other refuses but afterwards changes and does. Which did the will of the father? Jesus says, "tax-men and harlots will get to Heaven BEFORE you. BECAUSE John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but the tax-men and harlots DID believe; and YOU won't even feel REMORSE!" Who was "ELECT" here? Who? No one. The Jews were BLASTED for their unbelief, the sinners lauded for their belief. Belief causes election, NBF; election does not cause belief.

Next in ch21 is the parable of the LAND-owner; where the servents rebelled and killed the king's messengers; then the king sent his SON, and they even killed his SIN! (This is UNDENIABLY reflecting His OWN CRUCIFIXION!) Jesus said, "THEREFORE the kingdom of God will be taken away from you; BECAUSE you have rejected the very cornerstone; he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter like the dust." Can you deny that Jesus was berating them for DISBELIEVING? Why would he berate the UNELECT for doing what they COULD NOT AVOID? No, he is condemning them for CHOOSING not to BELIEVE.

In the parable of Matt22:2-14, how many people were NOT INVITED? Can you name ONE? Is there any reason given why they refused? One prefered going to his farm, another had MORE PRESSING BUSINESS. So, everyone in the streets were invited. Everyone, NBF, everyone. No one was missed, according to the parable. Those who REFUSED, "were not worthy"; there is nothing that hints their "unworthiness" was decided by the KING, it was all about their REFUSING the invitation.

Further strength in this thought is given in vs11; one man CAME, but REFUSED the clothes; THIS is the person you say "only accompanied but never really believed". It was the KING who decided not to give him the clothes --- right? No; the man refused them himself. He was there in BODY, but his HEART was not there! How much percent was the parable about the KING'S CHOICE, and how much percent was it about EVERY PERSON'S DECISION? Where is the election in that?

Ben, a parable is an illustration used to make a point, to illuminate a concept to make spiritual things easier to understand, but they are not doctrinal statements. As such they make no attempt to address the finer points of doctrine, and are not meant to be a positional statement of a doctrine. Jesus would say "the Kingdom of God is LIKE...", meaning a comparison for the purpose of highlighting a point. Besides, comparing the Kingdom of God to something temporal right away shows that it is not a statement of fact, but an imperfect comparison for the purpose of teaching a point. If He had meant parables to be doctrinal statemsts, He would have said "The Kingdom of God IS" this or that, showing clearly that he was making an absolute statement of definition. Just because Election isn't mentioned doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Argument from lack of mention is always a weak argument.

"For many are called, but few are chosen" --- to insert a dogma that says, "only those who were FEW-CHOSEN-ELECT-BY-GOD" --- denies the context, NBF; there is NO difference between the call of those who WERE chosen, and those who were NOT. Those who refused --- they just didn't WANT to. Those who accepted --- they wanted to; entirely of their own choice. Nothing of the KING.

Again, a parable, and as such not meant to be a doctrinal disertation. The call goes out to many, but only a few respond. In the greater context of the Kingdom, the difference is ability to respond. We know this to be true from the fact that not all who hear the Gospel believe. You want to blame that on the people not choosing to believe, and Reformed doctrine says that unless God has drawn them, they cannot respond. God not only calls them and draws them, but He also enables them to respond, those whom He has chosen.

Jesus would not have said any of these parables, if He really believed in election. There was COMPLETE VOLITION in the two sons, COMPLETE VOLITION in the vinyard, COMPLETE VOLITION in the feast-invitations...

Parables, parables, parables, Ben. NOT doctrinal statements. Do not presume to know what Jesus would or would not have said, especially with regard to Election. That is the height of presumption! The parables were not addressing Election, so Jesus was under no obligation to incorporate it just to satisfy you! And His not mentioning it does not give you license to say He didn't believe in it! That is a ghastly error to make, Ben! I am quite frankly shocked that you would say such a thing!

You know what? Believing in Jesus is NOT a SPIRITUAL THING that's limited ONLY TO THE REGENERATED! I oughtta know. I was there. I was not regenerate, and I knew it. But I was fully capable of hearing about Jesus. I heard about evolution, and Special Creation; I found millions of times more credibility in design rather than chance. Billions. Trillions. Reprobate that I was, I came to Him and asked: "Are You real? Do You want Me?" Jeremiah says, "if you seek Me you will FIND Me, if you search with all your heart". He did reveal Himself to me; and I believed. It was THROUGH THAT BELIEF, that received Him into my heart, that I BECAME spiritual, NBF.

A non-spiritual-man can hear about Jesus, and can believe. There is nothing in Scripture that denies this. Through that belief he becomes spiritual, and understands spiritual things.

I could show you in your own experience just about precisely where God regenerated your spirit in order for you to believe. I could share with you my own experience, and I know exactly when God regenerated my spirit, and it was before I believed and received. To be not too specific, it was the moment you actually started considering that Creation was by design rather than evolution. That was the moment your heart was opened to seek Him. That was the moment your heart was made alive, because you suddenly had a hunger for spiritual things, although you didn't know it at the time. Your heart knew! It just took a little bit for your mind to catch up.

Reality and Scripture deny this. Look at what I just quoted from you, and now read Rom10:14-15: "How shall they BELIEVE in whom they have not heard? How shall they HEAR without a preacher?" Think about that, NBF --- without a preacher they WON'T BELIEVE! If they had been DIVINELY REGENERATED, FIRST, then God would have found SOME WAY for them to have HEARD, or they would have believed ANYWAY. Paul plainly says "without a preacher they WILL NOT BELIEVE. So it is PREACHING that causes conviction/belief that causes regeneration; it is NOT regeneration that "leads to conviction/belief".

Without a preacher, HOW CAN they believe?

Without a preacher, HOW CAN they be elect?

How many African natives, and South American natives were saved BEFORE preachers came? What percentage? None of them believed. Why? Did God CHANGE His election-will, to ACCOMPANY the missionaries? For centuries before missionaries came, God conveniently UNELECTED all of them? Does that make sense?

"Without a preacher, how CAN they believe?" Certainly not by election...

You just proved to the whole world that you don't know what Election is, Ben. And in the process, you also have added another condition to salvation. You say there has to be a preacher. To preach the Gospel.

I wasn't saved by hearing a preacher preach the Gospel. I was saved by a divinely granted vison of the crucifixion. I walked in to a Catholic chapel on the Kent State University campus, and the crucifix they had hanging over the altar suddenly began to move, and I was no longer in a building, but in open air, and I saw Christ hanging on the cross, in great pain and suffering, moving and speaking, and I was suddenly aware that it was for me that He was suffering, that my own sins had made it necessary for Him to do this, and that it should have been me on that cross, suffering for my own sins. I was overwhelmed with my own unworthiness, and my own uncleanness, overwhelmed with sorrow for my sins. I don't know how long I was caught up in the vision, but when I was aware of my surroundings, I was on my knees at the altar, crying and asking God to forgive me. No one led me in a "sinner's prayer", no one told me the four spiritual laws, God dealt with my heart directly, and I was suddenly aware of a great weight being lifted from me, and I felt clean inside, clean and new. I was so relieved and happy that God had forgiven me and took that weight of sin off of me, I could barely speak. That happened at about 2 am, and I didn't sleep that night, or the next day. I was too excited to sleep.

I should also mention that I am not, and never have been Catholic.

Spiritually alive people believe savingly. Spiritually dead people don't, nor can they. Unless and until God regenerates the heart (spirit), it is impossible to believe savingly. It just cannot happen, Ben. In order for the man to believe savingly, his heart MUST FIRST be regenerated, i.e. made alive. THEN he can believe, because then the reality of his sins (conviction) is known, and also the forgiveness of sins through Christ is known, and he believes in christ, receives forgiveness of his sins, and is a child of God. It happens nearly simultaneously, but that is the order of events. You cannot get around the spiritually dead-CANNOT BELIEVE, spiritually alive-CAN BELIEVE truth.

 

[Ben johnson]

Ben, I am puzzled by the underlying tone of your questions. It seems that you view God doing for us that which we cannot do for ourselves as something evil and nefarious, rather than seeing it as the Mercy and Grace of a God who set His love on those whom He has chosen. You sound as though you believe that such actions on His part robs you of something! It looks as though you would try to cast what I say in terms that are objectionable and offensive, rather than truly consider what I am saying.

We agree that He did for us what we could not do. We disagree on the SPECIFICS of what He did for us. We could not save ourselves; we could not be righteous. We could not atone for our own sins, nor could we cease. That's why it's called "GRACE" --- the gift requires no payment, no effort or earning. The only differece between us, is that you consider man to be too corrupt to ever understand the Gospel, and I consider man IS corrupt but God draws each to the point where he CAN believe. Receiving a gift changes nothing of the gift --- its substance remains entirely of the giver; but there is no gift that is not received.

even being dead in the trespasses, did make us to live together with the Christ, (by grace ye are having been saved,) and did raise us up together, and did seat us together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

And I answer this, that we were made alive in Him, through our belief. Belief that receives Him, that HE does the WORK of salvation IN us.

No one can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (Joh 6:44) MKJV

I answer this by saying "He draws ALL MEN to Himself". I take many verses literally that speak of His desire for ALL men to be saved (1Tim2:4, 4:10 {Savior of ALL MEN, "malista" ABOVE ALL believers}, 1Jn2:2 {Savior of not just US but the HOLOS-KOSMOS-WHOLE-WORLD}, 1Jn4:14).

A natrual man has no capacity to understand spiritual things, and cannot receive them while stil a natural man. That is why God must regenerate the heart first, so the man CAN receive.

Believing in Jesus is not one of the "spiritually-discerned-things". If God calls EVERY man to salvation, then every man is truly equipped TO believe. The problem with saying that "regeneration is required BEFORE one can believe", is that conficts with passages like Luke8:13. Do you think these "SHALLOW-BELIEVERS", are only hypothetical and never exist? They do. Do you think it's a FALSE-BELIEF, they only have HEAD-KNOWLEDGE but don't REALLY BELIEVE? There is nothing in Jesus' words that says that. The only difference between "rocky" and "good", is that the "good" hear with hones/good heart, and HOLD FAST and bear fruit WITH PERSEVERANCE.

If regeneration was required FOR belief, then the rocky would never HAVE believed. If regeneration was instilled by God, then the rocky would still believe.

"They received it with joy, and believed for a while; but when persecution/affliction/temptation came, they FELL AWAY."

God not only calls them and draws them, but He also enables them to respond, those whom He has chosen.

But what's glaringly lacking, is any Scriptural support for the idea that either "God does not CALL every one", or "God only EQUIPS a FEW to respond".

You just proved to the whole world that you don't know what Election is, Ben. And in the process, you also have added another condition to salvation. You say there has to be a preacher. To preach the Gospel.

These are not BEN'S wprds. they are PAUL'S. Paul said: "with the HEART man BELIEVES" (faith comes from the heart); "for faith comes from hearing" (hearing convicts the heart, causing it to believe). You say "faith comes from God". Paul says "without a preacher, they will not hear, and so will not believe". That Paul says "how shall they believe ...without a preacher", denies your assertion that "SALVIC-FAITH-comes-from-GOD", but affirms 100% my assertion that "SALVIC-FAITH-comes-from-convicte-HEARTS".

No one led me in a "sinner's prayer", no one told me the four spiritual laws, God dealt with my heart directly, and I was suddenly aware of a great weight being lifted from me, and I felt clean inside, clean and new

God is REAL, NBF; you and I KNOW that. Jeremiah 29 says, "You will SEEK Me, and you will FIND Me --- when you search with all your heart. I WILL BE FOUND BY YOU!!!" There is nothing in your testimony that denies the "paradigm" of you suffering conviction, and SEEKING Him --- and He responded to you personally, directly, speaking tangibly to you. There is nothing that denies your regeneration occured through your belief and conviction.

CONVERSELY --- there are many, MANY people who truly believe, and cease to believe. They post here every day. You are constrained to accuse them of "NEVER-REALLY-HAVING-BEEN-SAVED". But they DID know spiritual things; they DID seek God, they DID rejoice in His presence and worship Him --- you said, "a natural man CANNOT seek the things of God"; they did, NBF. You see, belief can be like travelling on a ROAD; and sometimes there are BRANCHES in that road. Se might not even realize we are ON a branch; without perseverance, that branch can slyly and quietly drift further and further from the main road, until one day (if at all) the traveller suddenly finds himself DEEP IN A THICKET...

And THIS is why I believe Jude wrote: "Buiding yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Spirit, KEEP YOURSELVES IN THE LOVE OF GOD, waiting anxiously for the mercy of Christ to eternal life."

You cannot get around the spiritually dead-CANNOT BELIEVE, spiritually alive-CAN BELIEVE truth

We were not alive BEFORE we received Jesus. We were not alive BEFORE we believed. WHEN and WHILE we were dead, He made us alive; and we are resurrected to life through our faith. But you see, the MECHANISM for His "making us alive", was THROUGH OUR BELIEF! It was WHEN we believed that we "passed from death to life". There is no verse that says "salvic-faith is instilled by God" --- but rather, "faith comes from hearing, from learning about Jesus, from heart's conviction."

 

[michael servetus]

It is good that you changed the "country-flag" to Spain; Servetus was from Spain.

But I'm surprised at the choice of name --- I would have thought that "Servetus" and the whole "execution-thing" would have been distasteful to a strong Calvinist.

Man, I was run out of every country in Europe!

 

[Received]

And mercilessly stolen from the midst of his church congregation to taste fire.

 

[michael servetus]

And mercilessly stolen from the midst of his church congregation to taste fire.

Dude, I was tried and found guilty of sedition. I didn't follow God's rule about obeying those put in authority over me. I was judged by the sword, just like Paul talks about in Romans. (that's in the NT)

 

[nobdysfool]

Ben, I can't get to this for a day or two, so don't interpret my silence as defeat. Far from it. I just need to find the time it takes to give you a thorough answer. Life and work demands have to be met first....

nbf

 

[michael servetus]

It is good that you changed the "country-flag" to Spain; Servetus was from Spain.

But I'm surprised at the choice of name --- I would have thought that "Servetus" and the whole "execution-thing" would have been distasteful to a strong Calvinist.

Like my rightous brother woody sez: Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in Glory!

 

[drstevej]

I was judged by the sword,

I thought they served you a WARM STEAK rather than a COLD CHOP for your last meal.