Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

[Blade]

Not sure if this is just a play on words. Are we just talking about Christ dying on the cross for the worlds sin? Duh that would be no.

So if I go by the word that God so loved the world He gave His only son that who so ever believes in Him shall not die but have ever lasting life. Then He can not force anyone to believe. It has to be mans free choice. Christ said He is the only door and NO ONE gets to the Father but by Him. The way the truth and the life.

We know God can not go against our will. So seems this is just a play on words. So we may be floating in this ocean and He tosses us a life line. We must make the choice to grab it. If you wonder if YOU have a choice in being saved then ask Him. Hes IN YOU.

 

[Hammster]

I'm aware that you are ignoring my posts, which I take to mean you don't want to have to answer my questions or defend your own position.

But aside from that, your last sentence, a question is answered with YES!!!

Which goes to the point I challenged you with regarding why people will be cast into hell. You had posted that people go to hell for their sins.

Well, consider what Paul wrote:

2 Cor 5:19 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.

So, yep. Sin is no longer counted against anyone. Paul said so. I believe Paul.

Notice also who "God was reconciling to Himself in Christ". The world. So, can you show the thread FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people, or as Calvinists would say, "the elect"?

Since you continue to ignore context, and just pull out verses that you feel support your position, I can’t think of what I could say that would change your mind.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is what I said:
"I'm aware that you are ignoring my posts, which I take to mean you don't want to have to answer my questions or defend your own position.

But aside from that, your last sentence, a question is answered with YES!!!

Which goes to the point I challenged you with regarding why people will be cast into hell. You had posted that people go to hell for their sins.

Well, consider what Paul wrote:

2 Cor 5:19 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.

So, yep. Sin is no longer counted against anyone. Paul said so. I believe Paul.

Notice also who "God was reconciling to Himself in Christ". The world. So, can you show the thread FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people, or as Calvinists would say, "the elect"?"

Since you continue to ignore context, and just pull out verses that you feel support your position, I can’t think of what I could say that would change your mind.

What an obvious dodge again.

Why don't you actually support your opinion here with some facts, ok? Like showing how and where I've "ignored context".

In FACT, just read what I posted above, and you'll see that I challenged YOU to prove FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people or as Calvinists would say, "the elect".

And you attempt a response with I'm the one ignoring context???!!!

I just challenged YOU to prove from the context that the verses I shared CANNOT mean all of humanity.

So, instead of false charges against me, can you get to the business of defending your own view?

 

[Hammster]

This is what I said:
"I'm aware that you are ignoring my posts, which I take to mean you don't want to have to answer my questions or defend your own position.

But aside from that, your last sentence, a question is answered with YES!!!

Which goes to the point I challenged you with regarding why people will be cast into hell. You had posted that people go to hell for their sins.

Well, consider what Paul wrote:

2 Cor 5:19 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.

So, yep. Sin is no longer counted against anyone. Paul said so. I believe Paul.

Notice also who "God was reconciling to Himself in Christ". The world. So, can you show the thread FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people, or as Calvinists would say, "the elect"?"

What an obvious dodge again.

Why don't you actually support your opinion here with some facts, ok? Like showing how and where I've "ignored context".

In FACT, just read what I posted above, and you'll see that I challenged YOU to prove FROM THE CONTEXT that "the world" ONLY refers to saved people or as Calvinists would say, "the elect".

And you attempt a response with I'm the one ignoring context???!!!

I just challenged YOU to prove from the context that the verses I shared CANNOT mean all of humanity.

So, instead of false charges against me, can you get to the business of defending your own view?

Fine.


For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord⁠— for we walk by faith, not by sight⁠— we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

Notice all of the our, us, we references. He’s talking to the church about those in the church. Nothing about those outside of the church. Then we get to your proof text.

Notice all of the our, us, we references. He’s talking to the church about those in the church. Nothing about those outside of the church. Then we get to your proof text.

namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now, in midstream, he just switches to the whole world without reason? Then...



Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

...he switches back to talking to the church about the church. Context matters. When taking the passage as a whole, it’s nuts to think that Paul would arbitrarily switch his focus. And then switch back.

context, context, context.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Fine.


For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord⁠— for we walk by faith, not by sight⁠— we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,

Notice all of the our, us, we references. He’s talking to the church about those in the church. Nothing about those outside of the church. Then we get to your proof text.

namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now, in midstream, he just switches to the whole world without reason?

Faulty analysis. Of course he has reason to switch. He was teaching that Christ died for everyone, just as v.14 and 15 very plainly state. You've NOT shown that the "all" references just those who believe, or who are of "the elect", as you prefer.

And there's all the other verses that plainly state that Christ's death was for everyone.

Then...

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

...he switches back to talking to the church about the church. Context matters. When taking the passage as a whole, it’s nuts to think that Paul would arbitrarily switch his focus. And then switch back.

context, context, context.

Nice try. Why is it "nuts" to reference the scope of Christ's death in a dissertation to believers? Why?

If (first class condition) Christ died for everyone, then why not say so?

btw, the final phrase of v.14 - that one died for all, therefore all died

There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here. In fact, Paul made it clear who he was referring to by the words "therefore ALL died". That includes ALL unbelievers, if you weren't aware of that fact.

What you clearly don't have is any verse that states in plain words that Christ's death was for ONLY some. Period.

So the many verses I have shared here definitely trump your ZERO verses that support your Calvinistic opinion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Anyone , God Willing, who looks, will find ALL the Scripture that totally contradicts the false gospel.

What you clearly don't have is any verse that states in plain words that Christ's death was for ONLY some. Period.

==========================================================
Again, nothing you posted "trumps" any Calvinistic teaching that is from Scripture.

So the many verses I have shared here definitely trump your ZERO verses that support your Calvinistic opinion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Again, nothing you posted "trumps" any Calvinistic teaching that is from Scripture.

I agree that the Calvinistic teaching that "is from Scripture" I wouldn't even try to "trump". That would be rather silly. However, there are lots of Calvinistic teaching that is NOT from Scripture.

If you want to PM this, I'd be happy to.

In the meantime, prove that all the verses I posted regarding Christ's death on behalf of ALL or everyone cannot mean that universally. From the context.

Just throwing out your opinions, etc, doesn't get the job done.

You need evidence that backs up your opinions.

Thanks.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

(



AMP
Let your character [your moral essence, your inner nature] be free from the love of money [shun greed—be financially ethical], being content with what you have; for He has said, “I will never [under any circumstances] desert you [nor give you up nor leave you without support, nor will I in any degree leave you helpless], nor will I forsake or let you down or relax My hold on you [assuredly not]!”
AMPC
Let your character or moral disposition be free from love of money [including greed, avarice, lust, and craving for earthly possessions] and be satisfied with your present [circumstances and with what you have]; for He [God] Himself has said, I will not in any way fail you nor give you up nor leave you without support. [I will] not, [I will] not, [I will] not in any degree leave you helpless nor forsake nor let [you] down (relax My hold on you)! [Assuredly not!]
BRG
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
CSB
Keep your life free from the love of money. Be satisfied with what you have, for he himself has said, I will never leave you or abandon you.
CEB
Your way of life should be free from the love of money, and you should be content with what you have. After all, he has said, I will never leave you or abandon you.
CJB
Keep your lives free from the love of money; and be satisfied with what you have; for God himself has said, “I will never fail you or abandon you.”
(I don't know if these will come out in order or not)

I agree that the Calvinistic teaching that "is from Scripture" I wouldn't even try to "trump". That would be rather silly. However, there are lots of Calvinistic teaching that is NOT from Scripture.

Both non-Calvainistic and basically just throughout the world also....

In the meantime, prove that all the verses I posted regarding Christ's death on behalf of ALL or everyone cannot mean that universally. From the context.

============================================

Okay, just in case you are seeking what to do for or about someone you loved who killed themselves,
the answer , the only answer, is found in Jesus, in line with Yahweh's Word, always.
In mankind/ society, there is no answer.
In all the false teachings/ in the accursed false gospels, there is no answer.

Of universaleists deceived and always rejecting the truth of God's Word? That pattern ?

even if for "heart" reasons , seemingly caring or loving.. the errors won't help anyone.

Ha! Great question.
Since Original Sin had not been committed yet and man did not have the sin nature...HOW did A and E sin??

Well, you might say the evil one.

I agree that he is going about the world today,,,seeking whom he will devour.
I assume you're saying that those that preach these ideas are influenced by the evil one.

I agree.

I don't have any idea whether you were obfuscated, or tricked with butter-dripping persuasive words,
when you thought the anti-Gospel was okay to believe and to follow....
No, that was not from God.

If your faith still depends on human feelings of loss or such, from the flesh, from the enemy of Christ,
from sinfulness, then
the faith won't be much help to anyone, will it ?
As it is, most people go along with your stated results - refusing to repent all their lives, dying forever, both those who never "know Jesus", and those who think they do, but are told "be gone from Me" because all they did was for show, and not obeying Him.

Don't assume things, that's already harmed you long time.
No, but it can be - if it lead you or anyone to lose their own soul, then it is sinful and from the flesh.
I think it is insane to lose a soul eternally, on the basis of fleshly, carnal sinful feelings apart from Christ.

Compassion , Yahweh's Compassion, Ekklesia's compassion, true compassion, is healing, not devisive , though as Jesus says also: you think I (Jesus) Came to Bring Peace - I tell you no, but a sword - a sharp two-edged sword that will separate a man from his wife, from his son, a mother from her daughter.... (when one believes, and the other remains in rebellion)

Seek and keep seeking Yahweh's True Compassion, to bring healing to the suffering, if you wish to help someone...

 

[FreeGrace2]

Both non-Calvainistic and basically just throughout the world also....

This is what I posted:
FreeGrace2 said: ↑
I agree that the Calvinistic teaching that "is from Scripture" I wouldn't even try to "trump". That would be rather silly. However, there are lots of Calvinistic teaching that is NOT from Scripture.

Your response makes no sense.

Then I posted:
"In the meantime, prove that all the verses I posted regarding Christ's death on behalf of ALL or everyone cannot mean that universally. From the context."

And...no response from you.

Do you have, or not have, any verses that any of the verses I quoted CANNOT mean that "all" in those verses mean universally everyone.

And by that, I mean prove it. From the context.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Non-sequitur. There is no profit in the flesh, nor in false premises - nothing can be built upon them and last.
and pursuing rabbit trails in false teachings leads to worse confusion.

 

[Hammster]

Faulty analysis. Of course he has reason to switch. He was teaching that Christ died for everyone, just as v.14 and 15 very plainly state. You've NOT shown that the "all" references just those who believe, or who are of "the elect", as you prefer.

And there's all the other verses that plainly state that Christ's death was for everyone.


Nice try. Why is it "nuts" to reference the scope of Christ's death in a dissertation to believers? Why?

If (first class condition) Christ died for everyone, then why not say so?

btw, the final phrase of v.14 - that one died for all, therefore all died

There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here. In fact, Paul made it clear who he was referring to by the words "therefore ALL died". That includes ALL unbelievers, if you weren't aware of that fact.

What you clearly don't have is any verse that states in plain words that Christ's death was for ONLY some. Period.

So the many verses I have shared here definitely trump your ZERO verses that support your Calvinistic opinion.

Basically, your defense is that it means every single person because you believe it’s every single person.

“There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here.”

You are the one assuming. I’m the one that actually showed from the context. You are free to disagree. Like I’ve said, I can’t make you believe. However, if you’d like to try to prove your point from the actual text, I’ll be willing to listen. But I’m not just going to buy into

“There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here.”

You’ll have to give a reason from the text that supports your assertion.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Basically, your defense is that it means every single person because you believe it’s every single person.

No, my defense is that the Bible SAYS He died for everyone. And I proved it by quoting many verses that says that.

But, this is your only defense, because you have ZERO verses that state in any clear way that Christ's death was limited to less than everyone.

That's the difference between our views. I can point to multiple verses that actually SAY that He died for all. You cannot point to a single verse that says otherwise.

“There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here.”

You are the one assuming.

Thank you for your opinion, which is nothing more than a lot of presumption.

I’m the one that actually showed from the context.

All you did was pick out the fact that Paul was addressing believers. So what "rule", other than the imaginary "Calvinistic rule" is there that demands that if a limited group is being addressed, then EVERY occurrence of "all" can ONLY refer to that limited group?

That is sheer nonsense. As I pointed out, Paul was pointing out the reality to believers that Christ died for everyone in 2 Cor 5:14,15.

If Paul or any other writer wanted to make the point that Christ's death was for a limited number of people, they would have made that crystal clear by using adjectives to make it clear. For example, if "world" really means only "world of the elect", then there would be at least one verse that actually says that. But there are zero.

You are free to disagree.

Of course I am. I am also free to believe what the Bible clearly states. Just as Calvinists are free to make up their own version and twist what the Bible says so clearly into what they want it to be.

Like I’ve said, I can’t make you believe.

Certainly not when there's no truth in what is presented.

However, if you’d like to try to prove your point from the actual text, I’ll be willing to listen.

No, the burden is on YOU to prove that "all" and "everyone" CANNOT mean everyone in specific texts. All you've done is make a claim. You've proven nothing.

“There is NO reason to assume/presume/guess that Paul was referrring to ONLY believers here.”

You’ll have to give a reason from the text that supports your assertion.

The burden of proof is on YOU. I've given multiple verses that plainly STATES that Christ died for all/everyone.

Where is ANY verse that says His death was limited? You don't have even 1.

 

[Hammster]

No, my defense is that the Bible SAYS He died for everyone. And I proved it by quoting many verses that says that.

But, this is your only defense, because you have ZERO verses that state in any clear way that Christ's death was limited to less than everyone.

That's the difference between our views. I can point to multiple verses that actually SAY that He died for all. You cannot point to a single verse that says otherwise.


Thank you for your opinion, which is nothing more than a lot of presumption.


All you did was pick out the fact that Paul was addressing believers. So what "rule", other than the imaginary "Calvinistic rule" is there that demands that if a limited group is being addressed, then EVERY occurrence of "all" can ONLY refer to that limited group?

That is sheer nonsense. As I pointed out, Paul was pointing out the reality to believers that Christ died for everyone in 2 Cor 5:14,15.

If Paul or any other writer wanted to make the point that Christ's death was for a limited number of people, they would have made that crystal clear by using adjectives to make it clear. For example, if "world" really means only "world of the elect", then there would be at least one verse that actually says that. But there are zero.


Of course I am. I am also free to believe what the Bible clearly states. Just as Calvinists are free to make up their own version and twist what the Bible says so clearly into what they want it to be.


Certainly not when there's no truth in what is presented.


No, the burden is on YOU to prove that "all" and "everyone" CANNOT mean everyone in specific texts. All you've done is make a claim. You've proven nothing.


The burden of proof is on YOU. I've given multiple verses that plainly STATES that Christ died for all/everyone.

Where is ANY verse that says His death was limited? You don't have even 1.

So you can’t make your argument using context. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just said so.

 

[bling]

So, "even demons believe, and they tremble" means that demons cannot be saved, therefore they cannot have saving faith. In the same way, one who claims to believe but doesn't obey Christ doesn't have saving faith. But the faith that saves shows spiritual fruit, because the one who has it has been made spiritual by God. Believing in Christ is an act of God, and we should give Him the credit for giving us that free gift.

Lets look at it from a different direction:


Are you saying: “If you were gifted with saving faith you automatically have saving faith and cannot get of this saving faith and eternal life in heaven?” because that is different from what I am talking about, the “faith” I am addressing: has been gifted to all mature adults, but the individual still has the free will choice to extend that faith toward God to become a saving faith or refuse God’s Love, instead trusting in self. Since the person still has free will they can also can give up their birthright to eternal life at any time even after they extended a saving faith toward God. If they can do that at any time that would also mean, just having faith does not save you automatically.


I use these verses but there are lots of scripture concerning turning away:


1. Gal. 6: 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.


Paul explains plainly that eternal life is the harvest in the future we do not want to “give up”, but that also teaches we can give it up.


Our doing good stuff while here on earth (or better: our allowing God to work through us doing good stuff) is not to “earn”, “payback” or to allow us to “hold on to our salvation”. We want to continue to utilize Godly type Love and not get caught up in carnal type love so the huge Love Feast of Heaven (unselfish type Love only) still has value to us and not something we would sell on the cheap.


As far as being saved by faith only without “works”, that is true, but just like the Prodigal son wimped out of taking the punishment he fully deserved and humbly returned to the Father, we must wimp out, give up surrender to our enemy God and that will allow God to shower us with His charity.


2. Eternal Life in heaven is spoken of as our inheritance and not something we actually have at the moment. All other Gifts of God we have right away, but heaven is truly ours as a birthright (our inheritance).


3. The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.


Esau owned the “gift” of the firstborn inheritance rights, which could not be taken from him by anyone, nor could someone steal it from his hand, not even his father could take them back, but Esau could sell it or give it away.


The Hebrew writer is telling us not to give away or sell our birth right (as born again Christians) which is our inheritance of eternal life.


We own a paid-up tax-free deed to a home in heaven, so that home was gifted to us, but the Hebrew writer is saying we could sell (or give it away) like Esau did.
Again we are not doing or allowing the Holy Spirit to do good stuff through us to get anything (God has given us everything up front with the exception of dwelling in heaven right now), but we do have an undeserved birthright to heaven which cannot be lost like your keys, stolen from you, earned, paid back and even God will not take it from you, but you can of your own free will which you still have: given it away (satan wants it).​

Again we are not doing or allowing the Holy Spirit to do good stuff through us to get anything (God has given us everything up front with the exception of dwelling in heaven right now), but we do have an undeserved birthright to heaven which cannot be lost like your keys, stolen from you, earned, paid back and even God will not take it from you, but you can of your own free will which you still have: given it away (satan wants it).

People are naturally willing to accept common grace, since it feels good. But special grace requires spiritual wisdom, because it comes with tribulation, and is why it is necessary that God be working it in us.

“Grace” is pure undeserved charity and people will do almost anything to avoid having to humble themselves enough to accept pure undeserved charity. Can you give scripture of people accepting “grace” (pure charity as charity) and it not Loving be this special grace?

They do it all the time, since Jesus said "not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Well, we are both in the same boat with that one. Jesus has pointed out several times what people verbalize is not what their heart is saying.

It's God's work, and why it's not ours, it's a free gift. But when you examine the process of how a person gets there, it's more work than the average individual is willing to bear. It takes knowledge, experience, wisdom, courage, determination, endurance, sincerity, and probably a number of other virtues that people don't naturally have. When you believe what the scripture says about it, all that development of one's faith is the work of God in individuals, and so when a person comes to believe, it is the free gift of God. It may happen in an instant, or over some time, but it's still "the work of God."

Jesus said it was their work to do and not God’s work to do in them.

The belief of demons is based on knowledge, not wisdom. The wisdom to trust Christ for deliverance comes from above, not from human reasoning. "Spiritual" in the sense that Paul is using it doesn't mean awareness of the spiritual realm, but means proper relationship with God.

I just repeated your use of “spiritual” and not Paul, since Paul did say spiritual in unless we are addressing some other verse?

The sinful nonbeliever is not using some special knowledge or wisdom to trust in a benevolent Creator, but a trust and hope.

That day is the day of judgment, and that's a future day. "Broad is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that find it."

The humility for those who are humble now has to be the same humility for those who will be humbled later or there is a miss communication. I do not care “when” those who exalt themselves become humble, just the fact they can be humble, since if it takes some God given spiritual holy power to be humble, we would have God giving unbelieving sinners this power going to hell?

If people have gotten this far, then God has given some wisdom by common grace. But it does not mean that such people are born again. According to the parables of Christ, many will appear to be His disciples, but aren't in the book of life.

So the prodigal son represents the actions of a person hell pound?

911 brought a lot of people "to their senses" about the precarious nature of life, but it was not long lasted.

The parable of the prodigal son is in scripture and has to be consistent with all other scripture. Just because a situation brings a person to their senses does not mean they turn.

Your definition of faith is convoluted. You talk of "faith" and "saving faith," and yet you assume it is the same in the first part of your response. No, there are 2 kinds of faith, the worldly kind and the heavenly kind. It is just like the 2 kinds of wisdom that James talks about. Saving faith is one of the spirit, and since the unbeliever is spiritually dead in sin, he cannot exercise this kind of faith. It takes one spiritually alive to exercise this faith.

Jhn 10:26 "but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Notice that it does NOT say "you are not my sheep because you don't believe." He says "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Cause and effect. The cause of believing is to be a sheep of Christ, and this means regeneration comes before faith.

John 10:26 has Jesus talking to a specific group of people in the temple (most seem to be followers of the pharisees), who will soon take up rocks to stone him. Yes, he said “I did tell you, but you do not believe…” so whose fault is it that they do not believe?

Jesus says in John 10: 37… even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Is Jesus telling them something that is impossible for them to do: “believe the works” without having to believe him?

There are lots of verses telling us to believe, trust and have faith, so if a person cannot of their own free will direct your “worldly” faith toward God to make it a saving faith, then scripture is misleading. John 10:37 suggest they can start with one faith to develop another faith?

Your language is unclear. The master invited many, but did not choose them all. Only those accepting the invitation were chosen for it. Many are called, but few are chosen. And the point is, that God has to change the disposition of the heart of individuals for them to be willing to come, otherwise they would not come, according to John 6:44.
TD

No it is not saying that, the master is not sending some different type of invitation out which only causes some people to accept the message, but is say: the invitation we have to accept and go to the banquet to be part of the chosen.

 

[tdidymas]

Lets look at it from a different direction:

Are you saying: “If you were gifted with saving faith you automatically have saving faith and cannot get of this saving faith and eternal life in heaven?” because that is different from what I am talking about, the “faith” I am addressing: has been gifted to all mature adults, but the individual still has the free will choice to extend that faith toward God to become a saving faith or refuse God’s Love, instead trusting in self. Since the person still has free will they can also can give up their birthright to eternal life at any time even after they extended a saving faith toward God. If they can do that at any time that would also mean, just having faith does not save you automatically.​

Nothing is automatic, since God is at work, it's a divine appointment. Your definition of faith is not correct, IMO. The fact you say "has been gifted to all mature adults" is obviously not right, since many will be cast into hell. "Whoever does not believe is condemned already..." Only those whom God prepares for adoption are the ones who have the faith required. "All the Father gives to Me will come to Me."

I use these verses but there are lots of scripture concerning turning away:

1. Gal. 6: 8 Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9 Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Paul explains plainly that eternal life is the harvest in the future we do not want to “give up”, but that also teaches we can give it up.

It sounds like your view is a works-oriented salvation. All the warnings in scripture benefit the sons of God, but not the "bastards." So, the sons of God have the wisdom to heed the warnings, and they live it by faith, not by trying to fulfill requirements. Those not God's sons don't heed the warnings because they don't have the wisdom - Proverbs calls them fools.

Our doing good stuff while here on earth (or better: our allowing God to work through us doing good stuff) is not to “earn”, “payback” or to allow us to “hold on to our salvation”. We want to continue to utilize Godly type Love and not get caught up in carnal type love so the huge Love Feast of Heaven (unselfish type Love only) still has value to us and not something we would sell on the cheap.

Ok

As far as being saved by faith only without “works”, that is true, but just like the Prodigal son wimped out of taking the punishment he fully deserved and humbly returned to the Father, we must wimp out, give up surrender to our enemy God and that will allow God to shower us with His charity.

I don't think the Bible teaches that haters of God will submit to Him while in that condition, since they're dead in sin. Eph. 2 declares that God brings to life individuals, and that's what makes the difference in their ability to humble themselves and believe the gospel.

2. Eternal Life in heaven is spoken of as our inheritance and not something we actually have at the moment. All other Gifts of God we have right away, but heaven is truly ours as a birthright (our inheritance).

I take "heaven" as a place we go after physical death, which Jesus calls "the bosom of Abraham" in Luke 10. The resurrection is future, and the New Earth is future. But eternal life starts now, since John says "these things I write to you that you may know you have eternal life..." which means it is in the present. Eternal life is life in the spirit, with a guarantee of inheritance in the New Earth.

3. The Hebrew writer in Heb. 12:16 See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Esau owned the “gift” of the firstborn inheritance rights, which could not be taken from him by anyone, nor could someone steal it from his hand, not even his father could take them back, but Esau could sell it or give it away.

The Hebrew writer is telling us not to give away or sell our birth right (as born again Christians) which is our inheritance of eternal life.

I don't interpret it that way, since the majority of scripture teaches eternal life is permanent. Heb. is using Esau as a case in point. It is like parables that reveal a spiritual parallel, but is not for taking literally the details of it. Since the initial audience of Heb. are people who buckled under persecution and acted like they were abandoning the Christian disciplines, this statement was a warning to them to "keep the faith." It doesn't mean those who have eternal life can lose it; but rather that some of the audience (if not most of them) might not be born again. So the statement "See to it..." is speaking to those in the churches who are mature enough to convert sinners from the error of their ways. Like I said before, just because someone confesses Christ doesn't automatically mean they are born again.

The real question is not "can I lose my salvation," but rather "do I really belong to God." When we get the real question down, our confidence in God is established.

We own a paid-up tax-free deed to a home in heaven, so that home was gifted to us, but the Hebrew writer is saying we could sell (or give it away) like Esau did.
Again we are not doing or allowing the Holy Spirit to do good stuff through us to get anything (God has given us everything up front with the exception of dwelling in heaven right now), but we do have an undeserved birthright to heaven which cannot be lost like your keys, stolen from you, earned, paid back and even God will not take it from you, but you can of your own free will which you still have: given it away (satan wants it).

Again we are not doing or allowing the Holy Spirit to do good stuff through us to get anything (God has given us everything up front with the exception of dwelling in heaven right now), but we do have an undeserved birthright to heaven which cannot be lost like your keys, stolen from you, earned, paid back and even God will not take it from you, but you can of your own free will which you still have: given it away (satan wants it).

Those having the indwelling Holy Spirit are not fools, since they have God speaking to them. If someone "gives away their birthright" then like a fool, their profession of faith is suspect.

“Grace” is pure undeserved charity and people will do almost anything to avoid having to humble themselves enough to accept pure undeserved charity. Can you give scripture of people accepting “grace” (pure charity as charity) and it not Loving be this special grace?

I don't get your question, can you word it differently?

Well, we are both in the same boat with that one. Jesus has pointed out several times what people verbalize is not what their heart is saying.

Ok

Jesus said it was their work to do and not God’s work to do in them.

I don't know where you get this idea, it looks the opposite of what scripture teaches.

I just repeated your use of “spiritual” and not Paul, since Paul did say spiritual in unless we are addressing some other verse?

I can't see your point here. Pls explain.

The sinful nonbeliever is not using some special knowledge or wisdom to trust in a benevolent Creator, but a trust and hope.

Trusting in Christ requires spiritual knowledge and understanding, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 1-2. And this takes an act of God, since God must reveal Himself to an individual before this can happen, which is called being born again. Sons of God are born from God, not from a natural human choice.

The humility for those who are humble now has to be the same humility for those who will be humbled later or there is a miss communication. I do not care “when” those who exalt themselves become humble, just the fact they can be humble, since if it takes some God given spiritual holy power to be humble, we would have God giving unbelieving sinners this power going to hell?

So the prodigal son represents the actions of a person hell pound?

Can't see where you're getting this idea. When God saves someone (by unmerited favor), He changes their attitudes, since the Holy Spirit enters them and indwells them. His influence is powerful enough to cause them to make right choices, since their agenda has been changed to pleasing God. Therefore, anyone with this wisdom can't be hell-bound.

The parable of the prodigal son is in scripture and has to be consistent with all other scripture. Just because a situation brings a person to their senses does not mean they turn.

The parables do not depict exact details of spiritual processes. The parables are descriptions of what happens in the natural world that point to spiritual truths. And you are right about people aren't necessarily converted by some level of enlightenment. God still has to regenerate them.

John 10:26 has Jesus talking to a specific group of people in the temple (most seem to be followers of the pharisees), who will soon take up rocks to stone him. Yes, he said “I did tell you, but you do not believe…” so whose fault is it that they do not believe?

Jesus says in John 10: 37… even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Is Jesus telling them something that is impossible for them to do: “believe the works” without having to believe him?

Do you believe that people are born with a sinful nature which causes them to commit sins (ref. Rom. 7)? If so, then do you deny that they are culpable for their misdeeds? If you understand that people are culpable for their sin, then they must also be culpable for their unbelief. This means if someone refuses Christ, it is their fault, and they will be judged for it. "Whoever does not believe is condemned already..."

So, it is not that it is theoretically impossible for people to believe, or theoretically impossible to obey God (in the unregenerate state). Of course it is theoretically possible. But that doesn't mean that anyone will do it. Case in point is that it was theoretically possible for Jesus to commit sin, since He was fully human, but didn't mean that he would actually do such a thing. It is theoretically possible for a true Christian to lose his salvation and become apostate, but that doesn't mean that any of them will actually do it, since we are "protected by the power of God..." After all, if no danger existed, then what are we protected from?

So, God commands unregenerate people to repent and believe what He says, but their actions prove they'll never do it. They are rebels at heart, having a will that is separated from God, not listening for His voice, determining for themselves what they want to be right and wrong. It takes God enacting His special grace on those whom He has chosen to become like Christ in character and submission.

There are lots of verses telling us to believe, trust and have faith, so if a person cannot of their own free will direct your “worldly” faith toward God to make it a saving faith, then scripture is misleading. John 10:37 suggest they can start with one faith to develop another faith?

Your logic is the same as what Pelagius used - if God commanded men to obey, then it is in their power to do so. But that is a false conclusion. The NT teaches that people do not naturally have the capability to believe in Christ and obey the gospel. What has to happen is for God to make a person spiritually minded enough to understand that they as a human being cannot do what God commands, and to begin to trust God for His power to work in them so they can obey. This is living by faith, and it takes a regeneration.

No it is not saying that, the master is not sending some different type of invitation out which only causes some people to accept the message, but is say: the invitation we have to accept and go to the banquet to be part of the chosen.

I think you're missing the point. I never said it was a different type of invitation. Many are called but few chosen. Why are some chosen? Is it because they did something right and pleasing to the Master? That would be merited favor. But grace is unmerited, which means that God decides to work His gospel will in a person from what is in Himself, not from what is in the individual - this is grace unmerited.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

So you can’t make your argument using context.

I did. You failed. Just because Paul was addressing believers in his epistle to the Corinthian congregation, isn't any kind of reasonable argument that his use of "all" in 5:14,15 only refer to his audience.

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just said so.

lol. You failed to show any actual context that "all" refers only to believers. You could have just said so yourself.

btw, what about all the rest of the verses I quoted? Are you sticking with your unreasonable defense for all of them??

And, the bottom line continues to be: there are zero verses that specifically teach that Christ's sacrifice was limited to less than everyone in humanity.

 

[Hammster]

I did. You failed. Just because Paul was addressing believers in his epistle to the Corinthian congregation, isn't any kind of reasonable argument that his use of "all" in 5:14,15 only refer to his audience.


lol. You failed to show any actual context that "all" refers only to believers. You could have just said so yourself.

btw, what about all the rest of the verses I quoted? Are you sticking with your unreasonable defense for all of them??

And, the bottom line continues to be: there are zero verses that specifically teach that Christ's sacrifice was limited to less than everyone in humanity.

You can try to deny it (which you obviously will), but anyone who is following can see that I actually posted the whole chapter and gave a reason for my reasoning using context. You just keep doing what you always do, and repeat your assertion apart from context.

I’m finished with this discussion until you either give me a reason why I am wrong, using context, or give a reason why you think you’re right, using context. Any such restating that there’s just no reason that your view cannot be true will be ignored, and I will not respond.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You can try to deny it (which you obviously will), but anyone who is following can see that I actually posted the whole chapter and gave a reason for my reasoning using context.

Your so-called "reason" was quite unreasonable. Yes, Paul was addressing believers. But when he mentioned who Christ died for, he told them everyone.

It's just ludicrous to claim that JUST BECAUSE he was addressing believers, that any use of "all" would ONLY apply to believers. lol

You just keep doing what you always do, and repeat your assertion apart from context.

There is NO context for your unreasonable claim.

I’m finished with this discussion until you either give me a reason why I am wrong, using context, or give a reason why you think you’re right, using context.

I gave it to you. You are free to hold tightly to your own opinion.

Any such restating that there’s just no reason that your view cannot be true will be ignored, and I will not respond.

Well, that's more the usual response. Which is to not respond.

That's ok. You certainly did not prove your case.

And you didn't even try to address any other of the verses I shared. So show me any context that proves that "all" or "world" CANNOT mean everyone in humanity.

That's the only issue. And Calvinism CANNOT provide any verse that shows that Christ's death was for less than all of humanity.

It sure would have been easy enough if your theory were true.

Christ died only for the elect.
Christ died only for those who believe.
Christ didn't die for those who will be cast into the lake of fire.

See what I mean? No such verse. No such concept.

All you've done is twist the obvious meaning of a word to suit your own theology, even though it isn't biblical.

You talk about context. ok. Let's see some context with John 1:29 and 4:42.

While the Jews were God's "chosen people" john the baptist was NO Calvinist when he described Jesus as the Lamb of God who "takes away the sin of the world". What Jew would have described the Jewish people as "the world"?

Or the Samaritans. They weren't even considered full Jews. Yet both John and the Samaritans considered Jesus as the Savior of the world.

 

[bling]

Nothing is automatic, since God is at work, it's a divine appointment. Your definition of faith is not correct, IMO. The fact you say "has been gifted to all mature adults" is obviously not right, since many will be cast into hell. "Whoever does not believe is condemned already..." Only those whom God prepares for adoption are the ones who have the faith required. "All the Father gives to Me will come to Me."​

​

Again, you have not given scripture which points out there are totally different kinds of “faith” instead of one kind of faith controlled by the individual to direct it the way the individual sees fit to do. In fact because everyone is being asked to place (direct) their faith in God and Christ it appears they all have the power to do so or it would be misleading.

It sounds like your view is a works-oriented salvation. All the warnings in scripture benefit the sons of God, but not the "bastards." So, the sons of God have the wisdom to heed the warnings, and they live it by faith, not by trying to fulfill requirements. Those not God's sons don't heed the warnings because they don't have the wisdom - Proverbs calls them fools.

What? You cannot cease from sowing good or bad seeds in this life. If you quit sowing bad seed you automatically sow good seed and if you quit sowing good seed you are sowing bad seed. You are not the one who makes the seed grow.

Paul is addressing Christians (they would automatically be sowing good seed) and telling them not to quit, so is Paul preaching a works based religion?

I don't think the Bible teaches that haters of God will submit to Him while in that condition, since they're dead in sin. Eph. 2 declares that God brings to life individuals, and that's what makes the difference in their ability to humble themselves and believe the gospel.

Again! I fully agree with: “I don't think the Bible teaches that haters of God will submit to Him” and that is not the choice of the rebellious disobedient sinner! They do not have to be “brought to life” in order humbly accept pure charity as charity. They can do this from the same “dead” state the prodigal son was in.

I take "heaven" as a place we go after physical death, which Jesus calls "the bosom of Abraham" in Luke 10. The resurrection is future, and the New Earth is future. But eternal life starts now, since John says "these things I write to you that you may know you have eternal life..." which means it is in the present. Eternal life is life in the spirit, with a guarantee of inheritance in the New Earth.

As Christians we are eternal but like we find in Gal. 8:6… whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.

Paul does not say: “did reap eternal life” but will, which seems to refer to eternal life in heaven. The eternal life in heaven is what the Christian can give up.

I don't interpret it that way, since the majority of scripture teaches eternal life is permanent. Heb. is using Esau as a case in point. It is like parables that reveal a spiritual parallel, but is not for taking literally the details of it. Since the initial audience of Heb. are people who buckled under persecution and acted like they were abandoning the Christian disciplines, this statement was a warning to them to "keep the faith." It doesn't mean those who have eternal life can lose it; but rather that some of the audience (if not most of them) might not be born again. So the statement "See to it..." is speaking to those in the churches who are mature enough to convert sinners from the error of their ways. Like I said before, just because someone confesses Christ doesn't automatically mean they are born again.

You say Heb. 12:16 is: a warning to "keep the faith." So would that not mean they have faith and could lose their faith?

What support do you have for: “some of the audience (if not most of them) might not be born again”. They have already had to hold up to persecution which hypocrites have no reason to do. These letters were not published to be read by nonbelievers and why would a nonbeliever even want to read it?

We do not interpret scripture by a percent of scripture that supports one doctrine, but have to make all scripture consistent. I differ on your interpretation of the scripture you feel supports your doctrine. I like to challenge each verse individually to consider the most likely interpretation given the context.

The real question is not "can I lose my salvation," but rather "do I really belong to God." When we get the real question down, our confidence in God is established.

No. You do not “lose your salvation”, you cannot, but you can give it up to go back to pursuing the perceived pleasures of sin for a season. Sin can draw you back.
​

Those having the indwelling Holy Spirit are not fools, since they have God speaking to them. If someone "gives away their birthright" then like a fool, their profession of faith is suspect.

You can give it up to go back to pursuing the perceived pleasures of sin for a season. Sin can draw you back and if you quench the Spirit long enough unselfish Godly type Love loses its appeal.

Trusting in Christ requires spiritual knowledge and understanding, according to Paul in 1 Cor. 1-2. And this takes an act of God, since God must reveal Himself to an individual before this can happen, which is called being born again. Sons of God are born from God, not from a natural human choice.

I never said they weren’t “Sons of God are born from God, not from a natural human choice.” The human choice is in accepting what was done for them.

Can't see where you're getting this idea. When God saves someone (by unmerited favor), He changes their attitudes, since the Holy Spirit enters them and indwells them. His influence is powerful enough to cause them to make right choices, since their agenda has been changed to pleasing God. Therefore, anyone with this wisdom can't be hell-bound.

All rebellious disobedient nonbelieving sinners are hell bound and all mature adult have been there. Only God can give them a birthright to heaven. The “question” is: What keeps some from getting the birthright? I would say God has the desire, the power and the Love to give that birthright to everyone, but it has to be humbly accepted as pure charity by the hell bound person. Christ teaches us in Luke 7 “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…”, so the only way I see to obtain this Godly type Love (which cannot be made instinctive to humans [robotic] nor can it be forced on the person [like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun]) is through the person humbly accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt to get an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).

If the person does not want to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure charity, they would not be happy in heaven where it is one huge Love feast of only unselfish type Love.

People will do almost anything to get around having to make the choice to humbly accept pure charity to the point of saying “you can’t do it”. If you are saying: “Man does not have the ability of their own autonomous free will to humble themselves to the point of taking charity, you have taken yourself out of having to accept pure charity? You are saying: “the charity came to me in the form of being chosen” and then the Spirit moved me to do righteous stuff, but you did not accept that charity as charity?

I am saying God is not forcing you to accept His charity as charity if you do not want it. If you want to be Loved in spite of the way you are and you want to Love others the way God Loves you, then great.

The parables do not depict exact details of spiritual processes. The parables are descriptions of what happens in the natural world that point to spiritual truths. And you are right about people aren't necessarily converted by some level of enlightenment. God still has to regenerate them.

I agree lots of details are left out and we cannot extrapolate. It is parallel to some Spiritual truth.

Do you believe that people are born with a sinful nature which causes them to commit sins (ref. Rom. 7)? If so, then do you deny that they are culpable for their misdeeds? If you understand that people are culpable for their sin, then they must also be culpable for their unbelief. This means if someone refuses Christ, it is their fault, and they will be judged for it. "Whoever does not believe is condemned already..."

The “nature” Adam and Eve had caused them to sin, so our nature does not have to be different. The “knowledge” of evil provides tons of ways to sin so we will sin.

Sin actually has purpose in that it helps the willing nonbelieving sinner in fulfill his/her objective.

So, it is not that it is theoretically impossible for people to believe, or theoretically impossible to obey God (in the unregenerate state). Of course it is theoretically possible. But that doesn't mean that anyone will do it. Case in point is that it was theoretically possible for Jesus to commit sin, since He was fully human, but didn't mean that he would actually do such a thing. It is theoretically possible for a true Christian to lose his salvation and become apostate, but that doesn't mean that any of them will actually do it, since we are "protected by the power of God..." After all, if no danger existed, then what are we protected from?

So, God commands unregenerate people to repent and believe what He says, but their actions prove they'll never do it. They are rebels at heart, having a will that is separated from God, not listening for His voice, determining for themselves what they want to be right and wrong. It takes God enacting His special grace on those whom He has chosen to become like Christ in character and submission.

God does command all people to obey, but they soon realize they need more than their own power to obey (forgiveness, Love and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Your logic is the same as what Pelagius used - if God commanded men to obey, then it is in their power to do so. But that is a false conclusion. The NT teaches that people do not naturally have the capability to believe in Christ and obey the gospel. What has to happen is for God to make a person spiritually minded enough to understand that they as a human being cannot do what God commands, and to begin to trust God for His power to work in them so they can obey. This is living by faith, and it takes a regeneration.

So God telling them to “obey” does mean they can, but they will have to accept help.

I think you're missing the point. I never said it was a different type of invitation. Many are called but few chosen. Why are some chosen? Is it because they did something right and pleasing to the Master? That would be merited favor. But grace is unmerited, which means that God decides to work His gospel will in a person from what is in Himself, not from what is in the individual - this is grace unmerited.

There is no “righteousness” in being selfish. Jesus was not selfish and He is our example. The individual making the choice is not doing this out of a compelling “Love” for God so it is worthless (1 Cor. 13:1-7).

 

[tdidymas]

I did. You failed. Just because Paul was addressing believers in his epistle to the Corinthian congregation, isn't any kind of reasonable argument that his use of "all" in 5:14,15 only refer to his audience.


lol. You failed to show any actual context that "all" refers only to believers. You could have just said so yourself.

btw, what about all the rest of the verses I quoted? Are you sticking with your unreasonable defense for all of them??

And, the bottom line continues to be: there are zero verses that specifically teach that Christ's sacrifice was limited to less than everyone in humanity.

What about Rev. 5:9?
TD