Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

[tdidymas]

All mature adults have a God given “faith” ability that allows them to trust (have faith in) something or someone. We are told not to put our trust in idols like some people.

A saving faith happens when a person directs the “faith” trust they do have toward God.

The same Greek word can be translated “faith” or “faithfulness”, so keep that in mind when talking about what our gift is, since faithfulness is not the same as saving faith.

Biblical faith is a spiritual matter, not a natural matter. Believers in Christ are exercising a spiritual faith from their spirit, which is different than natural faith which anyone can do or not do. James makes that distinction in his epistle. In 1 Cor. 2 Paul makes the distinction between natural understanding and spiritual understanding concerning the gospel. So, if a person is dead spiritually as Paul describes in Eph. 2, such a person could possibly claim to believe in Christ. But since they "have no root in them," their "faith" disappears, and they are "unfruitful." Just because a person parrots the phrase "Jesus is Lord" doesn't automatically mean they have the Holy Spirit indwelling in them. Jesus spoke of those who call Him Lord that He will reject in the end.

So then, how can a spiritually dead person and one who doesn't understand the spiritual nature of their relationship with God, direct faith toward Christ? A person has to be first made spiritual and given understanding from above in order to do such a thing.

The unbelieving sinner just humbly “choosing” to accept pure charity is not anything noble, holy, righteous, worthy or honorable, so like the prodigal son it is something he can do for selfish reasons.

The unbelieving sinner can't humble himself before God, because he doesn't know enough to believe in Christ for the free gift of salvation. This is laid out in 1 Cor. 2. If he mimics humility by getting on his knees, he is trying to present his own righteousness to God as an appeasement of God's wrath. So, selfish reasons don't cut the mustard.

You try to explain away the prodigal son’s “coming to his senses” as the son first being “born again”, but the context suggests otherwise. The prodigal son’s bad choices, which caused him to reach the very bottom of starving to death and being a Jew having to feed swine, brought the prodigal son to his senses. Any sinner can look up see where he is headed and not want to go there. The son could have chosen to: be macho, pay the piper, take the punishment he fully deserves, not pester his father further and not fuel his brother’s contempt, by starving to death in the pigsty. That is the spiritual truth we gain.

You missed the point. The parable is not the spiritual truth, but rather points to it. And besides that, the prodigal's low place did not bring him to his senses, and the text doesn't say that. It says "he came to his senses." It means he had to have some wisdom and hope beyond his low place. Case in point is all the homeless bums drinking themselves to death, it does not bring them to their senses. When a sinner looks up, there is something beyond himself and his circumstances that motivate him to look up. So, does the promise of God by itself motivate a person to hope in Christ? No, because people hear it everywhere and don't turn to Christ. Rather, it takes an act of God to motivate a person to hope in Christ, and that's called regeneration.

Paul’s teaching does not contradict the idea: “The unbelieving sinner can for unrighteous reasons humbly accept God’s pure charity.”

Your statement is self-contradictory, because for one to "humbly accept God's pure charity," they must first believe in it.

In the parables of the banquets, not all those invited went to the banquet and the Master did not kidnap his guests to get them there. The call seems to be the hard to refuse invitation and all the guests were invited (called).

"Kidnap" is a straw man, because when the Father gives those He has chosen to Christ, He changes their hearts to be willing to come. So, it's not a kidnapping, but a conversion.
TD

 

[renniks]

The passage you quoted said the person without the Spirit does not accept the things of God. That’s not Reformed Theology. That’s right from scripture.

But where does it says everyone convicted by the Spirit will accept the things of God?

 

[renniks]

Nope. All means all. It’s just that “all” has more than one definition. And we aren’t universalists.

Oh, please. It has nothing to do with being a universalist. The atonement is universal. But it's only applied to those who believe.

 

[Hammster]

But where does it says everyone convicted by the Spirit will accept the things of God?

The point is person without the Spirit does not accept the things of God. You need to deal with that.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, please. It has nothing to do with being a universalist. The atonement is universal. But it's only applied to those who believe.

That’s not in Titus 2.


For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
— Titus 2:11-14

Nothing in there about universal atonement. Paul says salvation has appeared, and not just that. I know synergists like to stop at the end of 10, but there’s more. There’s sanctification. And this in no way applies to every person who ever lived. This is why context is important.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Oh, please. It has nothing to do with being a universalist. The atonement is universal. But it's only applied to those who believe.

I wouldn’t say that the atonement is universal because all will not be forgiven, but I would say that God’s calling is universal and those who answer the calling and abide to the end will receive eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace2]

renniks said: ↑
Oh, please. It has nothing to do with being a universalist. The atonement is universal. But it's only applied to those who believe.

That’s not in Titus 2.

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
— Titus 2:11-14

Nothing in there about universal atonement. Paul says salvation has appeared, and not just that. I know synergists like to stop at the end of 10, but there’s more. There’s sanctification. And this in no way applies to every person who ever lived. This is why context is important.

The atonement most certainly IS universal. The Bible says so. Titus 2 only hints at it, though.

Proof-

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


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

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

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

Well over a decade ago I used to debate Turrentenfan about the meaning of "malista". He argued that the word meant "ie", which is ludicrous. Just try to fit that meaning into all the other uses of that word in the Bible and anyone will see what I mean.

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

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Now, how many verses teach that Christ died ONLY for the elect. Or JUST for the elect? Or any other words that indicate that He didn't die for everyone.

 

[renniks]

I wouldn’t say that the atonement is universal because all will not be forgiven, but I would say that God’s calling is universal and those who answer the calling and abide to the end will receive eternal life.

Universal atonement is the teaching within non-Reformed theology which states that Jesus bore the sin of every individual who ever lived, and that he died for that sin on the cross. Therefore, the atonement is universal in that it paid the price of redemption for everyone.
However, even though Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived, not everyone receives Christ. So, as salvation is a free gift (Romans 6:23), and gifts must be received, those who do not receive the gift do not benefit from the atonement. Therefore, Jesus could atone for everyone who ever lived but it is up to the individual to receive, by faith, that atonement so as to appropriate it to himself.The Reformed camp teaches limited atonement, which is the doctrine that Christ only bore the sins of those whom God had predestined to salvation. Non-Reformed Christians hold to the universal atonement theory.

 

[Hammster]

renniks said: ↑
Oh, please. It has nothing to do with being a universalist. The atonement is universal. But it's only applied to those who believe.

The atonement most certainly IS universal. The Bible says so. Titus 2 only hints at it, though.

Proof-

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


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

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

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

Well over a decade ago I used to debate Turrentenfan about the meaning of "malista". He argued that the word meant "ie", which is ludicrous. Just try to fit that meaning into all the other uses of that word in the Bible and anyone will see what I mean.

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

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Now, how many verses teach that Christ died ONLY for the elect. Or JUST for the elect? Or any other words that indicate that He didn't die for everyone.

Pretty much the ones you cited, but understanding context, and that “all” has different meanings. Also, the fact that hell is punishment for the reprobate, so it would be unjust for the Father to punish the Son for sins that the reprobate will be punished for.

etc

 

[Hammster]

Universal atonement is the teaching within non-Reformed theology which states that Jesus bore the sin of every individual who ever lived, and that he died for that sin on the cross. Therefore, the atonement is universal in that it paid the price of redemption for everyone.
However, even though Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived, not everyone receives Christ. So, as salvation is a free gift (Romans 6:23), and gifts must be received, those who do not receive the gift do not benefit from the atonement. Therefore, Jesus could atone for everyone who ever lived but it is up to the individual to receive, by faith, that atonement so as to appropriate it to himself.The Reformed camp teaches limited atonement, which is the doctrine that Christ only bore the sins of those whom God had predestined to salvation. Non-Reformed Christians hold to the universal atonement theory.

Is rejecting Christ a sin He atoned for?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Luke 10:16 Whoever listens to you listens to Me ... - Bible Hub

https://biblehub.com › luke
Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."
‎Luke 10:16 Commentaries · ‎Luke 10:17 · ‎Luke 10:15

And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

 

[FreeGrace2]

Pretty much the ones you cited, but understanding context, and that “all” has different meanings.

If one wishes to argue that any of the verses I quoted use "all" in a narrow sense of less than the entire humanity, they MUST show IN CONTEXT why "all" cannot mean "all of humanity". Will you do that?

Also, the fact that hell is punishment for the reprobate, so it would be unjust for the Father to punish the Son for sins that the reprobate will be punished for.
etc

Where is the evidence that hell is punishment for the reprobate? I know this is a very common understanding, but we don't understand the Bible by democracy.

I can show WHY people are cast into the lake of fire, and it doesn't include punishment.

So, can you show that hell is punishment "for the reprobate"?

btw, since there will be many many people in hell who actually lived very moral lives, why pick on "the reprobate"?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Is rejecting Christ a sin He atoned for?

Of course it is. Otherwise, not even those who ultimately do believe would enter heaven. That should be obvious.

But, again, sin isn't the reason people will be cast into the lake of fire. I await your evidence that sin is the reason.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If one wishes to argue that any of the verses I quoted use "all" in a narrow sense of less than the entire humanity, they MUST show IN CONTEXT why "all" cannot mean "all of humanity". Will you do that?

If he does not, I will later, Yahweh willing.
Simply by looking up "all" in an online search engine for the Bible, for all the references.
(by "all" the references, please note that only a few are needed, not nearly all of them are needed)

(similarly, it only takes one contradiction, one thing opposed to God's Word, to show that some doctrine is not of Him and not compatible with Scripture)

 

[renniks]

Also, the fact that hell is punishment for the reprobate, so it would be unjust for the Father to punish the Son for sins that the reprobate will be punished for.

I had to read that three times and it still doesn't make any sense. We were all reprobates. Of course it's unfair for Jesus to be punished for anyone's sins! What does fairness have to do with it? If we got fair, no one would be offered salvation.

 

[renniks]

Is rejecting Christ a sin He atoned for?

Not according to any Christians excepts universalists.

 

[Hammster]

Not according to any Christians excepts universalists.

So it’s the one sin He doesn’t atone for?

 

[Hammster]

Will you do that?

I showed already that it’s not a universal in Titus 2. If you have another one or two, that’s fine. I’m not going to tackle a long list, as it’s not necessary.

 

[Hammster]

I can show WHY people are cast into the lake of fire, and it doesn't include punishment.

Go right ahead.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If he does not, I will later, Yahweh willing.
Simply by looking up "all" in an online search engine for the Bible, for all the references.
(by "all" the references, please note that only a few are needed, not nearly all of them are needed)

(similarly, it only takes one contradiction, one thing opposed to God's Word, to show that some doctrine is not of Him and not compatible with Scripture)

If you think you can prove from Scripture that Christ didn't die for everyone, please proceed.

This should be interesting.

btw, you don't need "all the references" to "all". What you or anyone else needs to do is prove from THE CONTEXT that "all" in reference to Christ's death cannot mean everyone.