Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

[Hammster]

Your idea is fatalism with God thrown in. It's no different at it's core than Aristotle's unmoved mover and in fact, was introduced into the church by Augustine who was a former cult member. He was influenced by Platonic philosophy and Manichaen theology. Peleagias may have gone too far in the other direction, if he did indeed believe what is claimed, that is, that man can obey God perfectly of his own will. That is not what I am claiming. I'm just stating the obvious, that God will give us the ability to obey him, to the extent that we choose to rely on him.

Except that relying on Him is obeying Him. So what you are saying is that God will give us the ability to obey Him if we first obey Him.

 

[Hammster]

But those who are not converted, but are convicted, could have been saved if they had surrendered.
Otherwise, it's just God forcing himself on some and ignoring others. That's not a God of love. That's not the One who died for all.

If two people own me a great sum of money, and I forgive one his debt, but not the other, am I being just?

 

[renniks]

Except that relying on Him is obeying Him. So what you are saying is that God will give us the ability to obey Him if we first obey Him.

Which is what the scripture tells us we can do.
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
James 4:7

 

[Hammster]

Which is what the scripture tells us we can do.
Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
James 4:7

James is talking to believers.

 

[renniks]

If two people own me a great sum of money, and I forgive one his debt, but not the other, am I being just?

Doesn't matter, because it doesn't apply. We are told Jesus died for all. If all can't respond that's a lie.

 

[Hammster]

Doesn't matter, because it doesn't apply. We are told Jesus died for all. If all can't respond that's a lie.

That’s a deflection, not an answer.

 

[renniks]

James is talking to believers.

" We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

 

[renniks]

That’s a deflection, not an answer.

An answer to what? You just made up a situation that doesn't even apply to the discussion.

 

[Hammster]

" We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

Again, this is written to the church. It’s important to understand who these letters were written to.

 

[Hammster]

An answer to what? You just made up a situation that doesn't even apply to the discussion.

Otherwise, it's just God forcing himself on some and ignoring others.

That’s the situation that you brought up.

 

[tdidymas]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Where do you get the idea that receiving the free gift of eternal life "includes not even making the choice to receive it"?
Please explain this "action". The statement has no meaning without some explanation.

Everyone is always doing something. The only people doing nothing are dead.

Word games. Inaction is just that; no action. This is a common trick by Calvinists; redefine words to fit their theology.

Look in the mirror, you do it quite often. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that live people are always doing something and making choices every minute of every day. The only ones inactive are dead.

Stop right there. You're trying to get to the "T" in TULIP; that man is incapable of believing. Nonsense. Read Romans 2:14 and realize that God created humanity with a conscience so they can determine right from wrong.
So, there goes your "T". Out the window. And that tumbles all the rest of the letters.

That verse is controversial, as some interpret those gentiles he’s talking about as Christians. But besides that, it’s common to confuse natural knowledge and conscience with spiritual understanding, since people do it all the time, and apparently you are here. Paul is giving that as an illustration to show that Jews “do the same thing” as those they condemn. This chapter is speaking to those under law, showing that no one obeys the law at all times, which is leading up to how justification is applied.

So my point is that you are misusing that verse by taking it out of context. This knowing of right and wrong doesn’t prove that an unregenerate person can believe in Christ in a saving way. That’s your interpretation based on your Arminian bias.

And man's "greatest desire" is also tied to his conscience, you know, the one God gave man so he could determine right from wrong.

Conscience is only one influencer to the human will. Most, if not all, people will disregard conscience given certain circumstances, and the fact that all sin, this happens all the time.

What do you mean by "afterward"? I can't follow this sentence.

Ref. Eph. 2:5. When God raises a person to life (by means of the gospel message), their spirit becomes “in Christ” and the Holy Spirit comes into them to join with their human spirit. Then God becomes their guide, as they have become a spiritual person. That action enables the person to believe the message they heard. That is, believe in a Biblical way, wherein their whole being, spirit, soul, and body, is put to action to obey the message. Their greatest desire then, is to know God and believe what He says, and that becomes greater than the desires of their old life, that is, to do whatever their lust demanded.

I only ask that you take what I’m saying as life direction, and not to read sinless perfection into it.

Utter nonsense. Your statement is patently FALSE. No where in the Bible is the action of "believing in Christ" described as "the free gift of God". If you think so, then prove it from Scripture. All you're giving me are reformed talking points, none of which are found in Scripture.

I proved this to you, but you just refuse to see it.

Please define "life". Physical or spiritual. Apart from that, your sentence can't be understood.

Spiritual. I think your question indicates you don’t understand Eph. 2 yet.

lol. I'm responding to what YOU are posting. Maybe your view of Scripture is what is distorted. I've already shown your errors in this very post, by describing "believing in Christ" as a free gift of God.

If I'm not listening, then how am I able to address your sentences and point out the errors in them?

I'm responding to what YOU post.

Just to make sure you get the point, I am responding to what YOU post.

No, your response was full of false accusations. You’re reading with eyes of prejudice, not with an open mind. The errors you claim are not errors. They are your biased opinions.

Of course He does. But Calvinists seem totally unaware of how contradictory that really is according to their own theology. Why would God offer something to those He NEVER INTENDED to give? But, you can't answer that.

Jesus said “many are called, but few are chosen.”

If God intends to save everyone called in this case, then why are only few chosen? If God looks to the person to decide who to choose, then what are they doing that merit His choice? In this view, those who are chosen merit the choice of God in some way, don’t they? If you claim the choice is not merited, then you’re playing games with words. Do you agree that God looking to a person for what they decide makes Him choose them for salvation, that His choice is merited by that person?

The "wanter" is the conscience, which I've already addressed. If you are trying to get to the talking point about regeneration precedes faith, don't bother. There aren't any verses that teach that.

“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

In fact, I can share verses that PROVE that faith precedes regeneration.

No you can’t. You already tried that, but it requires your biased interpretation to prove it. We’re in the same boat, aren’t we?

Wow. You accused me of not listening, and now you prove that you aren't. I said that taking by force is stealing.

Because that would be incorrect. God doesn't waste time offering what has already been given. Can't you see the absurdity in such a statement?

There is NO REASON to offer what has already been given.

If a husband gave his wife a cup of coffee, and THEN offered her one, she would be thinking of getting him admitted to a mental hospital.

Again, you have the natural realm and the spiritual realm confused. The gospel is only offered in the natural realm, but since people have a sinful nature (a spiritual problem, the big “T”), God has to illumine them spiritually (making them spiritual people). This sets them free from captivity to the devil, and they then believe the gospel they just heard and obey it. This is what Eph. 2 is about. But obviously this doesn’t happen for everyone within hearing range.

Actually, you seem to "get" very little. Where do YOU get the idea that grace is irresistible? Certainly not from the Bible.

John 6:37 “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” - that sounds pretty irresistable to me.

What about Acts 7:51?

Those people are unregenerate. Of course the unregenerate will resist the Spirit. It is the regenerate whom God chose who receive this irresistable grace. Again, are you confusing natural experience with spiritual truth? That’s a common problem.

You questions are bogus. In the first one, obviously they can't. But how does that support reformed theology? It doesn't. It's just a fact. One has to understand before they can believe. Romans 10 lays that all out.

“The natural man does not receive...” means that a person must be made spiritual to understand the gospel, which is spiritual by nature.

As for the second question, aren't you aware that many people have CHANGED THEIR MINDS about what they have believed? Haven't you EVER changed your mind about something?

I was one who changed his mind. It happened after God spoke to me. As long as I was a sinner, my conscience and knowledge of God was suppressed. But after God came in and spoke to me “face to face” so to speak, I was not able to deny Him, and so I surrendered to Christ because I felt I had no choice in the matter. I’m simply describing how I changed my mind. Actually, God changed my mind, and all it took was for Him to open my ears to hear Him speak.

I am only pointing out the fallacies of Calvinism. It isn't biblical.

You’ve yet to prove anything Biblically.

I've met and read in magazine many people who clearly DO understand the message of the gospel and YET don't believe it. So don't give me this jazz. And you are still trying to defend regeneration before faith, which isn't biblical.

Yet Paul wrote that the natural man can’t understand. Your idea isn’t Biblical. I’ve proven that many times, and by now you should have memorized 1 Cor. 2:14 by how many times I’ve quoted it. Go back and read ch. 1 and 2 of that epistle, with an open mind, if you dare, and see that what I’m saying is true. But I know you won’t.

So, iow, you don't have any such verse that supports your claims, so you simply dodge and ask me a question. Doesn't work like that.

You dodge all the time, so look in a mirror. We talked about this before - “This is the work of God, to believe in the one whom He sent” - belief is the work of God. But then, you refuse to hear it.

But, since your question is so easy to answer, I can't resist. No one believes "apart from God". That would be impossible. You see, from Romans 1:19,20 God already made His existence obvious, so that no one has any excuse. Those who never respond to God's obvious existence will never be able to use the excuse at the GWT judgment that "no one told me the gospel". Ha. No excuse.

Yes, God made His existence known by what He made. So then, how do you explain atheists? They know that God exists, and yet they deny it. Why? Because their spirits are dead. Every unregenerate person will do the same thing in some way. They can’t accept the gospel, because their sinful nature is in the way. They have no real excuse before God, as Paul means, but they have excuses they make in their own minds. This is the result of natural “free will” autonomous reasoning. This is why God must take action in an individual to save them.

But of course, you don’t believe this, because you are confused about what is natural in contrast to what is spiritual. And in this confusion, if I say John wrote that the world doesn’t know God in 1 Jn. 3:1, you have to somehow work around it, because if you think that natural understanding and spiritual understanding is the same thing, then this verse contradicts Rom. 1:20 in that view.

Since we have the written word, again, no one has any excuse. The Bible came from God. So there is no such thing as "apart from God". Yet, this isn't even close to the talking point about regeneration in order to believe.

there is no such thing as "apart from God"

Eph 2:12 "remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."
*** without God ***

Not.even.close.
I already gave you what he answer should have been if he were a Calvinist.

So, I must ask you, since Paul wasn't omniscient, and could NOT know if the jailer was "one of the elect", how does his answer align with Calvinism's view of election?

The jailer asked the question, which is evidence that God was working, so Paul discerned correctly.

Then explain why evangelize since God has already chosen, and apart from ANY conditions, who will be saved? I know the stock answer, that God commands it. But even that is contrary to reality. If God has already chosen, apart from any condition, then there is NO NEED for it. Since what God ordains, will surely come to pass. I think that is in the WCF.

God saves people through the preaching of the gospel with the renewal of the Spirit (Titus 3:5), so it is our duty and privilege.

I'm not arguing that.

What you are arguing against is that when a person believes the gospel, that God has done a spiritual work in them. You claim that spiritual work comes after.

Sure. What gauge? What brand? Nonsense. You simply were convicted in your soul by the Holy Spirit and you realized, from your God given conscience, that you needed to be saved.

Of course no one "plans to become a Christian". So no need to make such a statement, as if others do.

He meets everyone where they are.

It sounds to me like you are now agreeing with me. Do you then agree that when a person believes the gospel that God has done a spiritual work that enables them to believe?

It's God's choice that everyone be saved. But not everyone gets saved.

If God chose everyone to be saved, then everyone would be saved, because God has the power to save them. But then you can’t believe that, because it contradicts your viewpoint.

So you don’t believe that God has the power to save everyone. You think it requires some choice from the person, to enable God to save them.

Because if God has the power to save everyone, but doesn’t, it means that He chose not to save everyone.

But of course you won’t answer to this as usual, or you’ll claim it’s nonsense. But if you really believe God chose to save everyone, then it logically follows that you don’t believe God has the power to save everyone.

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.
Blue words are God's desire.
Red words are who Christ died for.

God doesn’t actually do all that He desires to do, just as you don’t either. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. It doesn’t mean He decrees to save them. So, it says He wants all people to be saved, it doesn’t say He predestined all people. My conclusion is that God’s predestination is necessary for any to be saved.

It says “for all people,” not “for everyone.” He’s talking about people groups, not individuals. Rev. 5:9 says Christ’s blood purchased “men from every tribe...” - “men from...” means it’s a subset. So to adhere to the law of non-contradiction, we must reconcile the meaning of these two verses, assuming that “ransom” and “purchased” have the same meaning.

So, the Calvinist interprets “all people” as “all sorts of people” and the Arminian interprets it as “everyone.” And the Calvinist interprets “men from every tribe” as some of the people, and the Arminian interprets it as “all the people.” And therein do our paths diverge.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

tdidymas, your post was so long, I had to split it up in order to post it.
Here's the second part.
Of course it would be. You're a Calvinist and Calvinists think that God forces His gift on those He chooses. But you cannot find any verse that backs you up on this.

“When the Spirit of truth comes, He will convict the world...”
Sounds like force to me. And in my experience God conquered me, as I was sore afraid.

I've never said God doesn't impose things on people. The Bible, though, NEVER says anything about imposing salvation on anyone. That's your error.

Eph. 2:5 “even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” - this is actually a tremendous force, “the power of God” imposed on the spiritually dead.

The "it" refers back to being saved, or salvation. Which perfectly aligns with Rom 6:23 and eternal life is a gift of God.

Salvation is the result of grace and faith, and it is the gift of God. Since it says “not of yourselves,” then it all has to be God’s gift. All of it. And Eph. 2:5 describes exactly how.

And...what's your point here?

Faith comes from the outside of a person. It is a condition of heart - “with the heart man believes unto righteousness” that is established by God – we are born again of the seed of the word, that is, the gospel. It comes from the outside of us, and God establishes on the inside of us by His free grace – Eph. 2:5. So faith is the gift of God, since it “comes” to a person. It’s not someone’s “free will” choice. The fact that they do choose to continue believing is simply the result of God’s work. My point is that God does the work of establishing faith in us first, then we believe.

Do you even understand this verse. The word "faith" is a noun. What is the noun? The message from God. That's what has come to man, and man receives.

No, it says “received a faith.”

Rom 10:9 says that man believes from the heart. Not "from God'.

No, it says “with the heart.” The heart is the one that expresses it, it does not come from there. What comes from the heart is what Jesus said what comes from there:

Mat. 15:19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.” This is supported by Jeremiah’s testimony in 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else, and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” So only evil comes from the heart of man. In order for justifying faith to come to it, God must change it to be driven by His Spirit.

Irrelevant statement, since "faith" isn't "done to you". It's not a verb.

Faith is an expression of the heart that has been conditioned by God to do so. Therefore, it is done to us. It's a spiritual condition and action.

I never said any such thing. There are many religious faiths. People choose what they believe. Do you understand that?

I understand that you think there is only one kind of faith that exists, and it has to do with natural understanding and reasoning.

Eternal life, salvation, and the Holy Spirit are ALL described in the Bible as gifts. Is that specific enough for you?

In your view, eternal life is a gift to everyone, but since everyone doesn’t receive it, people have to do something to receive it, and that something is “choose to believe.” Am I reading you correctly?

My faith, which is the belief system found in the Bible, obviously comes from God, since God wrote the Bible through human authors.

If you are asking about my action of believing in Christ, that came from my heart, since the Bible says so.

No, it doesn’t. It says “with the heart man believes...” It doesn’t say “from the heart.” And besides that, Paul isn’t talking about the unregenerate heart of man anyway, he is talking about the spiritually regenerated.

No, Paul is talking about the fact that unbelievers cannot understand spiritual things. But that is not the gospel.

The gospel is the “spiritual things” he is talking about. He was talking about it since ch. 1 and is still talking about it.

The proof is in the fact that many unbelievers HAVE described the gospel message very accurately and yet don't accept it.

Because the gospel is spiritual by nature.

Do you understand the story of Santa Clause? Do you believe it?

No, because the Spirit of God doesn’t bear witness to it. However, historically there really was a “saint Nicholas” who gave gifts.

No it doesn't. Here's the FACT. God gave everyone a conscience, with which to discern right from wrong. Some don't care, some do. Nothing about being more righteous in the choice. That's just smoke and mirrors.

Aren't you aware of Gen 15:6, and Romans 4? On the basis of believing God's word, God CREDITS righteousness to the believer. Do you see it? It isn't the action that is righteous, but that God imputes or credits righteousness to the one believing.

I get what scripture says, but my point is that your idea that faith comes from the wicked human heart doesn’t fit in the context of scripture. A natural conscience may discern right and wrong, but doesn’t discern the gospel as Paul says in 1 Cor. 2:14. Therefore, the unregenerate are still under law, not grace. God must give special grace to individuals to translate them from under law to under grace. But I’m sure you don’t see that.

Are you admitting that what you believe to be true isn't a choice that you have made?

Admitting? I’ve been saying it all along, and as clearly as I can put it. God does the work, and my belief in Him is a condition of heart that He established. Belief is a condition of heart, not a choice. This is a spiritual matter, not something that natural reasoning understands. This is why we need the NT as God’s revelation to us, to tell us about spiritual matters.

No it doesn't. Read it again. Rom 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.

iow, coffee comes to the one who asks for it. So, what comes first; the coffee, or the request for coffee.

Can you admit that you are interpreting the statement? In the sentence (the text), reading left to right, the word “salvation” is before “believes.” My point is that you do this very thing when it’s convenient to your viewpoint. But you interpret it to mean that “believes” is the logical precedent of “salvation.”

But the controversy is not over that. It’s over what comes before belief. You think that no spiritual activity comes from God prior to that belief, and I think that belief comes after spiritual activity from God. Isn’t this the real issue?

Because His death saves NO ONE. His death satisfied the justice of God the Father. That is why God CAN give a free gift to those who believe. Their sins have been paid for. But that doesn't mean they have been forgiven. Jesus even told the Pharisees that they would die in their sins if they didn't believe in Him.

Your idea that Christ’s death saves no one is in error. The Bible says His blood redeemed us, and it’s just another word for death. It’s the same idea. So satisfying the justice of God is our salvation, at least initiating it.

Further, if Christ’s death satisfied God’s justice for everyone, then why does the wrath of God abide on those not obeying? I contend you have a contradiction.

You would be wrong. Christ died for every person. That is personal. By His death, He purchased a "Christmas present" for everyone.

Picture a Christmas tree with Christmas presents for everyone in humanity, with their name on their own present. Inside is the gift of eternal life.

So, who gets a present. Only those who believe in Christ for salvation.

But the Calvinist version is that only those who God chose beforehand to have it.

So, Christ died for every person, and only those who believe in Christ receives salvation, and those who believe choose to do so out of their free will. Am I understanding you correctly?

If so, then it is the choosing to believe that merits a person getting saved. If you disagree, then please explain.

Totally. Correct evangelism tells unbelievers that Christ died FOR THEM. But Calvinism won't ever say that.

Arminianism puts Christ’s sacrifice at saving everyone in general, but no one in particular. Therefore, someone has to do something to merit it.

But you claim that choosing to believe isn’t doing something. Yet it requires mental energy. That’s doing something. Thinking is doing something. Lusting is doing something. Imagining is doing something. Choosing is doing something. In the process of choosing, you are considering things, working things out in your mind. It’s mental labor.

The fact is, the preacher says “your Father in heaven” and “Christ died for you” and such things because the preacher doesn’t know whom God has chosen in the crowd. And only some people believe because God does a spiritual work in some and not everyone who heard.

Eph. 2:5
How does this verse support any of your claims.
" made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved."
What it does is equate "made alive (regeneration)" with "being saved". It's v.8 that sinks your boat. There, faith precedes salvation.

It’s simultaneous. God does the spiritual work necessary to get a person’s heart right, making him spiritual. Hearing the gospel is a spiritual matter. Individuals are dead in sin, so they need God to bring them to life, open deaf ears, open blind eyes, and that’s when people believe. It’s something God does to people, not something they choose to do out of a spiritually dead state. This is what Eph. 2:5 is about.

Your claim is unsupported in ch 10.
OK, let's consider a sheep pen, and a shepherd who has His own sheep in that pen. But there are other sheep in that pen that are not His own. OK?

If the shepherd says He will die for his sheep, that makes sense. What if he says that he will die for THE sheep in that pen. That's different.

I can see how you come to that interpretation, I just disagree, because in my view it doesn’t fit the context. The point of what Jesus is saying has to do with who His sheep are. Those not His sheep aren’t sheep, they’re goats.

No, He said nothing about "not yet" in the fold. He was referring to Gentile believers.

Are you talking about the 3 Greeks that wanted to talk to Jesus once? There is nothing in the NT that there were any Gentile believers up to that time. In fact, it wasn’t until Acts 10 that Gentile believers were accepted, and prior to that, the apostles were surprised that God sent Peter to the Gentiles. Therefore He had to be talking about the future.

You are just in total denial of the reality of what Jesus said. He identified sheep that were His and sheep that were not His. And He would die for THE sheep.

This is where our paths diverge, as I don’t agree.

And this demonstrates the sheer ERROR of your misunderstanding. There is NO mention of goats anywhere in ch 10. So what you are doing is eisegeting the text, not exegeting the text. You are adding what is not there. If Jesus considered the unbelieverss goats, He would have said so. But that would be weird, since Jesus was talking about people, believers and unbelievers. So in ch 10, THE sheep means everyone.

No, Jesus doesn’t contradict Himself. He told the parable of the sheep and the goats. He said He puts the sheep on His right and the goats on His left. It is probable that those same people He was talking to in John 10 had heard that parable, and so it is reasonable to infer that when He said “you are not My sheep” that He was communicating that they were goats. I have in mind the wider context of scripture here. And, since they ended up trying to kill Him, it proves beyond doubt that they were goats indeed.

This is prophesy when Jews and Gentiles are in the same church, after His death and resurrection.

Yes, exactly. It’s a prophecy of the future, when Gentiles come into the church. It happened years later, after Paul’s conversion. Therefore, His “other sheep” were His before they became believers.

You don't understand anything about adoption then. Rom 8:23 indicates it is still future.

What is future is the redemption of our bodies. What is past is the redemption of our spirits. Salvation is past, present, and future. So when John wrote that we are sons of God, it means spiritually we are already sons by adoption. The same with Rom. 8:16.

Eph 1:4 is clear. The "us" refers to believers, as proven from v.19 where Paul actually defines what he means by "us". God chose believers to be holy and blameless. This speaks to how believers are to live their lives, as these words are found elsewhere as a command to obey.

This choosing happened before we ever existed. Wasn’t that your question?

Just to be clear, I'm no Arminian. They are quite screwed up in their silly loss of salvation view.

So you’re a 4-point Arminian then (or a 1-point Calvinist).

Nope. You are all aone in that biased interpretation of yours.

You are free to think anything you want to. But just read Rom 8:23 and learn about when adoption occurs. John 1:12 and Gal 3:26 prove that you are wrong.

You’re contradicting yourself here. You’re claiming that Rom. 8:23 says adoption is future, but Gal. 3:26 says it’s present. Which is it?

I don't reject any Scripture. I DO reject the talking points of Calvinists and Arminians who misread and misunderstand Scripture.

You should look in the mirror, as most of what you say are talking points.

Are we having fun yet?
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

TD,

My response to your very long post was un-postable for being beyond the limits. So I had to cut it in half. And we're not getting anywhere. Just talking over each other. So I'm ignoring both of your responses, since each post is still way too long.

So, I propose 1 subject to deal with (argue/debate) at a time. And I will begin with the first point of TULIP.

T stands for total depravity. I fully agree that man is unable to save himself, and cannot even participate by helping God save him.

But where Calvinists go off the rails biblically is their insistence that man can't even believe the gospel apart from being regenerated.

Your challenge, should you accept, is to share verses that clearly teach that man is unable to believe apart from regeneration. Not asking for any specific wording, but that the teaching is clear and plain. parables, metaphors and figures of speech don't get the job done. You need plain and straightforward language.

However, I will show that man is fully capable of believing the gospel apart from regeneration. In several ways.

First, the Bible indicates that faith precedes regeneration.

Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red words refer to regeneration. The new birth. The blue words clarify what being "made alive" means; which is "you have been saved". So, iow, to be made alive, or regenerated, is to be saved. They go together.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Here, the blue words are the same as the blue words in v.5.
The red words are the means of being saved, which is through faith. That means the faith must be there in order to be saved.

So, since being saved and being made alive are synonymous, it is clear that faith precedes being made alive and being saved.

But there's more. There are verses that speak to people refusing to believe.

Acts 14:2 - But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

Acts 19:9 - But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

The obvious point is that one cannot refuse to do something if they don't have the ability to do it.

For example, you cannot "refuse" to jump straight up in the air 6 feet by your own power, simply because you are unable to do it by your own power. And to claim that you refuse to do it would be most absurd, since everyone knows that you are unable to do it by your own power.

And there's more. People refuse to repent.

Jer 5:3 - Lord, do not your eyes look for truth? You struck them, but they felt no pain; you crushed them, but they refused correction. They made their faces harder than stone and refused to repent.

Rev 2:21 - I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

Being "unwilling" to do something that you are incapable of doing is immaterial. Just like refusing. They are the same thing.

Rev 16:9 - They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Rev 16:11 - and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

Your turn.

 

[bling]

You are describing a relationship with God after a person already believes in God. I'm talking about how they get that belief in the first place. It requires God to act on a person by revealing Himself and granting spiritual wisdom to believe and obey the gospel, this is what being born again is.

We have been over this already: All mature adults are gifted with the ability to place trust (faith) in something or someone, but it is up to them to direct that faith toward God. You divide faith into a worthless God given ability and a saving faith, but there is nothing in scripture saying the same faith a person has in an idol could not be directed toward God and in fact we are to stop worshipping (trusting) in idols, self, money, false teachers and trust the Lord.

I see you saying that believing doesn't save a person, but loving people does. If I believe in Christ, that is nothing. But if I love people, then that saves me. Am I reading you right?

I just quoted Paul for the most part. A rebellious disobedient sinner who has a faith which can move mountains (not literal mountains and this is a hyperbole) is still hell bound without Love. The sinner has to take the faith they have been given and direct it toward God to be Loved and obtain Godly type Love.

What I am saying is that the unregenerate person who Paul calls the "natural man" can't direct faith toward God, because his natural reasoning doesn't come to the proper conclusion. See Rom. 8:7.

Read, Ro. 8: 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. I am saying the unbelieving sinner is hostile to God, he hates his enemy God at the moment of his surrendering like any good soldier who surrenders. There is no “law” he is following selfishly surrendering to hopeful receive undeserved charity.

James makes a distinction between wisdom that is of this world, that is, natural reasoning, and wisdom that comes from God, that is, spiritual reasoning. It's not the same. And the faith that each reasoning is based on isn't the same. Therefore, I disagree with you on this matter. Paul makes the distinction between natural and spiritual reasoning in 1 Cor. 2. I think he's clear that the unregenerate person will never believe.

Wisdom in how to make money is not the same wisdom in how to Love others, but we are not talking about “wisdom”, but trust (faith). You can place your trust/faith in an idol to give you some kind of life after death or you can trust God to keep his promises, so yes there is a huge difference in who/what you are trusting in and the result, but what is the difference in the trust/faith itself and where is that poited out in scripture?

Again, it sounds like a works-based salvation to me. Either you believe your salvation is merited by your choices or not. Either you believe your salvation is unmerited by anything you do or choose, or not. You can't have it both ways.

The kind of seed you are sowing (one from the Spirit and the other from satan) determines your salvation, but you did not make the seed.

Again, it sounds like you are describing the Christian life, not how a person gets saved or how they obtain faith to begin with.

The kind of seed you are sowing (one from the Spirit and the other from satan) determines your salvation, but you did not make the seed.

God saves you.

All mature adults have the gift of faith which is their faith to do with as they please, so they can direct it toward God or some idol.

What's the difference? Being willing to accept charity is the same as coming to Christ, because it is given through Christ and His work. Are you trying to say one becomes willing through a deception that willingness to accept is all it takes? And then once one becomes willing, that the hammer comes down? I just want to be clear about what you're saying. It sure sounds like the virtue of choosing to obey the gospel to me.

There is a huge difference:

You can for very selfish reasons and while you are hating your enemy (God/Christ) still trust in their Love to be willing to accept undeserved charity.

Versus

Coming to Christ (“obeying the gospel” as you say) is an act of “love” which the rebellious disobedient sinner does not have.

I'm saying that the way I read Paul in Rom. 3:10-18 is that no one is willing or will ever be willing to accept God's charity, unless God does something to them first, and that something is regeneration. Titus 3:5. Accepting God's charity requires believing in God.

We have been the very poetic verses of Ro. 3:10-18, so please go back and see what I said and it all has t You can for very selfish reasons and while you are hating your enemy (God/Christ) still trust in their Love to be willing to accept undeserved charity.

Versus

Coming to Christ (“obeying the gospel” as you say) is an act of “love” which the rebellious disobedient sinner does not have. o do with:



Your combining everything makes God at fault for all those who go to hell, since God controls their rejecting His help.

Guess what, salvation is a whole deal from God, and He does everything. You can't break it up into pieces as if part done, part not done, or His part done, my part not yet done. The only part incomplete is the sanctification which is present and ongoing, and glorification which is future, and both are done by God. When Paul speaks of being saved by grace through faith in Eph. 2:8, it is the whole deal, and all those aspects go together.

And your idea that it makes God at fault for those going to hell is a false conclusion. It's their fault, and God's justice is exact for them. But it is God's "fault" that some are saved.

There is a part man plays but it is not “work” by the Biblical description of “earthly work” (deserving a payment). Man has to just be willing to accept pure charity as charity from his enemy (God).


And your idea that it makes God at fault for those going to hell is a false conclusion. It's their fault, and God's justice is exact for them. But it is God's "fault" that some are saved.


Form your description of salvation God is the arbitrary deciding factor, so it would be His fault some go to hell.


Why is it not possible for God to save everyone under your explanation?​

I've said several times before that the idea that man makes an autonomous free will choice to accept God's love is pure fantasy and speculation, and has nothing to do with reality according to Paul in Rom. 3:10-18. You just keep on saying it as if your claim is going to break me down and concede. Our paths really do diverge here, from what I can see. Man's autonomy is the problem, not the solution. The solution to the problem is for God to make us willing slaves by changing the disposition of our hearts. Only then does God change in our eyes from enemy to friend.

I have before explained Ro. 3:10-18.

You say: “The solution to the problem is for God to make us willing slaves by changing the disposition of our hearts.” Right there you are saying it is God’s problem for not making us willing. The problem is our problem for not being willing to accept pure charity.

And I'm saying that according to Rom. 3:10-18, no one will perform the correct acceptance until God regenerates them. Titus 3:5

See previous answers.

Do you claim that everyone today who claims to be a Christian are actually born again?

Paul is writing to Christians not just anyone who might claim to be a Christian.

I'm more into what scripture actually says than all this reasoning. In John 10, Jesus said "I lay down my life for the sheep." For the sheep, not for the goats. Later He says "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." So here we have the doctrine of limited atonement. It's not by virtue, since it is worthy of much more. But the limitation is by design, by God's choice "for the sheep." It implies that it is not for others.

This is written by the same author as 1 Jn. 2:2. So I think you need to prove that your interpretation of this verse doesn't contradict John 10.

Was there a time you were lost?

Was there a time in your life when you were not saved?

Where you always a lamb of God?

While in your sinful rebellious disobedient state, if you reject the ransom payment, then the laying down of Christ’s life is a waste for you and no payment is made to you, so Christ did not die as a gift for you because you never accepted the gift.

 

[tdidymas]

TD,

My response to your very long post was un-postable for being beyond the limits. So I had to cut it in half. And we're not getting anywhere. Just talking over each other. So I'm ignoring both of your responses, since each post is still way too long.

So, I propose 1 subject to deal with (argue/debate) at a time. And I will begin with the first point of TULIP.

T stands for total depravity. I fully agree that man is unable to save himself, and cannot even participate by helping God save him.

But where Calvinists go off the rails biblically is their insistence that man can't even believe the gospel apart from being regenerated.

Your challenge, should you accept, is to share verses that clearly teach that man is unable to believe apart from regeneration. Not asking for any specific wording, but that the teaching is clear and plain. parables, metaphors and figures of speech don't get the job done. You need plain and straightforward language.

However, I will show that man is fully capable of believing the gospel apart from regeneration. In several ways.

First, the Bible indicates that faith precedes regeneration.

Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red words refer to regeneration. The new birth. The blue words clarify what being "made alive" means; which is "you have been saved". So, iow, to be made alive, or regenerated, is to be saved. They go together.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Here, the blue words are the same as the blue words in v.5.
The red words are the means of being saved, which is through faith. That means the faith must be there in order to be saved.

So, since being saved and being made alive are synonymous, it is clear that faith precedes being made alive and being saved.

But there's more. There are verses that speak to people refusing to believe.

Acts 14:2 - But the Jews who refused to believe stirred up the other Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers.

Acts 19:9 - But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.

The obvious point is that one cannot refuse to do something if they don't have the ability to do it.

For example, you cannot "refuse" to jump straight up in the air 6 feet by your own power, simply because you are unable to do it by your own power. And to claim that you refuse to do it would be most absurd, since everyone knows that you are unable to do it by your own power.

And there's more. People refuse to repent.

Jer 5:3 - Lord, do not your eyes look for truth? You struck them, but they felt no pain; you crushed them, but they refused correction. They made their faces harder than stone and refused to repent.

Rev 2:21 - I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.

Being "unwilling" to do something that you are incapable of doing is immaterial. Just like refusing. They are the same thing.

Rev 16:9 - They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Rev 16:11 - and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

Your turn.

I see where you are getting your interpretation. Like I said before, in these prooftexts, it appears that belief logically precedes being saved. But I would like to point out what I said before:
1. Unregenerate people don't believe, and therefore they readily refuse to repent, refuse to believe, and are unwilling to repent.
2. Since faith is the gift of God which is expressed by a person who is saved, the faith itself comes from the supernatural working of God in a person, in spite of the fact that it logically precedes salvation. Further, salvation is a more general term than regeneration, and includes it. So, regeneration of the spirit can indeed precede the faith that brings the salvation of the soul.

So now, think about the idea of choosing to believe. What goes on in a person's mind at that time? "I don't believe this message, because it doesn't make sense. Nevertheless, I will choose to believe it, because I think it has advantages for me." Do you think that a person chooses to believe in that way? Do you think that a person goes from not believing to believing by a conscious voluntary choice? I think not.

I think this is a much more plausible process: "Alas, I'm undone, as I'm told that the wrath of God hangs over me, and I feel it. I certainly don't want to be judged and go to hell. I really hope this message of forgiveness through Christ sticks with me and changes my life. I can see I need God to get out of this plight." - So can you see that the person who reasons in this way already believes in God, already believes the message, and is already willing to repent?

When a person believes in Christ, they have heard the message of the gospel. They cannot even consider repentance unless they already believe. And this belief arises up in the heart, and the one who believes merely realizes that he believes the message. He doesn't know where that faith came from, but all he knows is that the gospel message is true. And knowing that, he is confronted with the need to repent from his sins.

Seeing that belief in the gospel arises up in a person from the unconscious mind, that belief is not a conscious choice, but an unconscious condition. It is involuntary, not voluntary. It comes from the spirit, not the conscious mind. It is an illumination by the Holy Spirit.

This is why Paul writes "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." A person's spiritual ears must be opened by a supernatural act of God upon the spirit of an individual. Then when they hear the gospel, they are hearing spiritually, not merely with natural ears and a natural mind. So "faith comes" is that believing the gospel that arises in a person's heart and confronts them with the truth about Christ and the nature of their relationship with God.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

We have been over this already: All mature adults are gifted with the ability to place trust (faith) in something or someone, but it is up to them to direct that faith toward God. You divide faith into a worthless God given ability and a saving faith, but there is nothing in scripture saying the same faith a person has in an idol could not be directed toward God and in fact we are to stop worshipping (trusting) in idols, self, money, false teachers and trust the Lord.

I thought you said that "mature adults" as you say are sinners. Yet you describe them here as already believing in Christ and the gospel, since that would be required to direct their faith to God in the manner that the NT describes.

Your idea of someone, on his own cognizance, could direct his faith away from an idol and toward God, is preposterous. If a person believes in a god of his culture, there is no way he is going to redirect faith to a God he doesn't know, just because someone came along with a contrary message. The only thing that what you propose could happen is if God revealed Himself to that individual, and that means that God is instilling faith in that person by reason of revelation. It's a spiritual event, not by natural reasoning.

I just quoted Paul for the most part. A rebellious disobedient sinner who has a faith which can move mountains (not literal mountains and this is a hyperbole) is still hell bound without Love. The sinner has to take the faith they have been given and direct it toward God to be Loved and obtain Godly type Love.

Paul isn't saying what you claim. If he were, then we would be saved by the works of love, and not by faith alone as he teaches. Are you proposing that we are saved by faith plus works?

I contend that Paul is telling the Corinthians that their actions prove whether their faith is genuine or not. It's the same kind of distinction between mere claim to faith and genuine faith that James talks about. If their "faith" doesn't result in obedience to Christ's command to love others, then "they are nothing" - that is, their Christian identity is false.

Read, Ro. 8: 7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. I am saying the unbelieving sinner is hostile to God, he hates his enemy God at the moment of his surrendering like any good soldier who surrenders. There is no “law” he is following selfishly surrendering to hopeful receive undeserved charity.

And how is what you say here any different in essential idea as what I said? This verse proves that an unregenerate sinner will never believe and repent.

Wisdom in how to make money is not the same wisdom in how to Love others, but we are not talking about “wisdom”, but trust (faith). You can place your trust/faith in an idol to give you some kind of life after death or you can trust God to keep his promises, so yes there is a huge difference in who/what you are trusting in and the result, but what is the difference in the trust/faith itself and where is that poited out in scripture?

Blind faith is nothing but gullibility, and this dissipates with knowledge. Therefore, a person cannot believe unless he has knowledge of God, Christ, and the gospel. I think Paul is clear that the unregenerate person he talks about in 1 Cor. 1 & 2 is not able to properly assimilate knowledge of the gospel, and thus to him it doesn't make sense. The only people who know what to do with the gospel message enough to obey it are those whom God has prepared to know it, and Paul calls this wisdom from God. It's a spiritual matter.

The kind of seed you are sowing (one from the Spirit and the other from satan) determines your salvation, but you did not make the seed.

Don't confuse the seed of the gospel with seeds that you sow. The gospel seed is that which God plants in you, not what you plant. So this statement sounds like you believe in a faith plus works salvation.

The kind of seed you are sowing (one from the Spirit and the other from satan) determines your salvation, but you did not make the seed.

God saves you.

All mature adults have the gift of faith which is their faith to do with as they please, so they can direct it toward God or some idol.

I disagree with you on this matter. Faith in Christ is something spiritual, not natural.

There is a huge difference:

You can for very selfish reasons and while you are hating your enemy (God/Christ) still trust in their Love to be willing to accept undeserved charity.

Versus

Coming to Christ (“obeying the gospel” as you say) is an act of “love” which the rebellious disobedient sinner does not have.

It is impossible for a hater of God to accept His charity, simply because the nature of hating someone means you don't believe in them. Even if you attempted to accept it ("feigned worship") you would despise the gift and consider it valueless. It's the nature of hate. So, those who believe that God is their enemy will never accept charity from Him, because their minds are full of slander. Further, this condition will not likely be conscious to them, because it is a spiritual matter.

We have been the very poetic verses of Ro. 3:10-18, so please go back and see what I said and it all has t You can for very selfish reasons and while you are hating your enemy (God/Christ) still trust in their Love to be willing to accept undeserved charity.

Versus

Coming to Christ (“obeying the gospel” as you say) is an act of “love” which the rebellious disobedient sinner does not have. o do with:

Your combining everything makes God at fault for all those who go to hell, since God controls their rejecting His help.

I disagree. You are confusing reformed theology with determinism, it's not the same. People going to hell is their fault, not God's, and God is just in exacting eternal punishment on them for their sins. They are culpable.

But mercy is the exception to justice, not the rule. If God didn't have special and extra mercy on some, then none would be saved, because everyone starts out in life in the spiritual condition that Rom. 3:10-18 describes. It's a spiritual matter.

There is a part man plays but it is not “work” by the Biblical description of “earthly work” (deserving a payment). Man has to just be willing to accept pure charity as charity from his enemy (God).

And here is where our paths diverge. No man will ever be willing to accept the gospel unless God interrupts their life by a spiritual act.

Form your description of salvation God is the arbitrary deciding factor, so it would be His fault some go to hell.

This is a false conclusion, since man is culpable for his sin, as it says that God will judge everyone according to their deeds.

Why is it not possible for God to save everyone under your explanation?

I never said that, it's your idea. You seem to think it's not possible for God to save anyone without their permission or consent. I'm simply saying that God intends to exact judgment on the wicked, and He is righteous to do so, and at the same time have mercy on some so as to save them.

I have before explained Ro. 3:10-18.

You say: “The solution to the problem is for God to make us willing slaves by changing the disposition of our hearts.” Right there you are saying it is God’s problem for not making us willing. The problem is our problem for not being willing to accept pure charity.

Again, false conclusion, which confuses God having mercy on some with God causing unwillingness in the rest. Not so.

See previous answers.

Paul is writing to Christians not just anyone who might claim to be a Christian.

He's writing to the Roman church, which he knows contains people who claim to be Christians but are not. That condition exists today as well.

Was there a time you were lost?

Was there a time in your life when you were not saved?

Where you always a lamb of God?

While in your sinful rebellious disobedient state, if you reject the ransom payment, then the laying down of Christ’s life is a waste for you and no payment is made to you, so Christ did not die as a gift for you because you never accepted the gift.

I'm not sure what your point here is, as it's not clear.
There was a time I was lost, not saved, a sinner, and hater of God. While I was in my sinful state, I did indeed reject the ransom payment (many times). What I am saying is that when I finally did accept the gift, it was divine imposition.

But I think you are agreeing that atonement is limited to those who accept it, as effective application. Right?
TD

 

[bling]

I thought you said that "mature adults" as you say are sinners. Yet you describe them here as already believing in Christ and the gospel, since that would be required to direct their faith to God in the manner that the NT describes.

You are not reading what I said or I am just not communicating something to you: “All mature adults are gifted with the ability to place trust (faith) in something or someone, but it is up to them to direct that faith toward God.”

Having the ability and doing it is not the same thing. Under your doctrine having the ability and it happening is the same?

I did not say: "’mature adults’ as you say are sinners”, but all mature adults have sinned, but some become Christians and thus are not “sinners”, but Christians.

Your idea of someone, on his own cognizance, could direct his faith away from an idol and toward God, is preposterous. If a person believes in a god of his culture, there is no way he is going to redirect faith to a God he doesn't know, just because someone came along with a contrary message. The only thing that what you propose could happen is if God revealed Himself to that individual, and that means that God is instilling faith in that person by reason of revelation. It's a spiritual event, not by natural reasoning.

This “someone” can have a faith that can figuratively move mountains, so yes, he can direct it away from an idol that can do nothing for him toward the Creator of the Universe even if he does not know for sure who He is.

Under your scenario if the person does not direct his faith toward God it is God’s fault.

Paul isn't saying what you claim. If he were, then we would be saved by the works of love, and not by faith alone as he teaches. Are you proposing that we are saved by faith plus works?

What is the biblical definition of “work” you use? God saves you, so faith alone does not save you and He is not faith, but faith allows God to shower you with gifts which includes salvation, so in that sense faith results in salvation.

I contend that Paul is telling the Corinthians that their actions prove whether their faith is genuine or not. It's the same kind of distinction between mere claim to faith and genuine faith that James talks about. If their "faith" doesn't result in obedience to Christ's command to love others, then "they are nothing" - that is, their Christian identity is false.

And how is what you say here any different in essential idea as what I said? This verse proves that an unregenerate sinner will never believe and repent.

No it does not say what you are saying, exactly! The soldier of satan an unbelieving sinner is hostile to God and he does not submit to God’s law (God is tell us to be unselfish), but he can be willing to accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy (God).

Blind faith is nothing but gullibility, and this dissipates with knowledge. Therefore, a person cannot believe unless he has knowledge of God, Christ, and the gospel. I think Paul is clear that the unregenerate person he talks about in 1 Cor. 1 & 2 is not able to properly assimilate knowledge of the gospel, and thus to him it doesn't make sense. The only people who know what to do with the gospel message enough to obey it are those whom God has prepared to know it, and Paul calls this wisdom from God. It's a spiritual matter.

Knowledge of God, Christ and the gospel does not produce faith, but I agree that believing in a Love great enough to extend any charity to a hostile, disobedient, rebellious, undeserving sinner is not logical, but it is God.

Don't confuse the seed of the gospel with seeds that you sow. The gospel seed is that which God plants in you, not what you plant. So this statement sounds like you believe in a faith plus works salvation.

I am just sowing the good news or bad news.

I disagree with you on this matter. Faith in Christ is something spiritual, not natural.

What scripture are you using to show faith is not faith?

It is impossible for a hater of God to accept His charity, simply because the nature of hating someone means you don't believe in them. Even if you attempted to accept it ("feigned worship") you would despise the gift and consider it valueless. It's the nature of hate. So, those who believe that God is their enemy will never accept charity from Him, because their minds are full of slander. Further, this condition will not likely be conscious to them, because it is a spiritual matter.

Soldiers in battle will accept pure undeserved charity from the enemy all the time and like it.

I disagree. You are confusing reformed theology with determinism, it's not the same. People going to hell is their fault, not God's, and God is just in exacting eternal punishment on them for their sins. They are culpable.

God is just and He is described that way, so for God to treat two people alike, in the areas that you feel matters, differently would not be just, so He cannot do that without lying.

But mercy is the exception to justice, not the rule. If God didn't have special and extra mercy on some, then none would be saved, because everyone starts out in life in the spiritual condition that Rom. 3:10-18 describes. It's a spiritual matter.

Justice and mercy can be totally compatible and equal for all for God, in every situation and are under my scenario.

And here is where our paths diverge. No man will ever be willing to accept the gospel unless God interrupts their life by a spiritual act.

You keep throughout things out I am really not disagreeing with you on like I agree: “No man will ever be willing to accept the gospel unless God interrupts their life by a spiritual act.” It is not the “gospel” they are accept, but just the willingness to accept pure charity (a small hand out from their enemy), they are not asking to be children of God.

I never said that, it's your idea. You seem to think it's not possible for God to save anyone without their permission or consent. I'm simply saying that God intends to exact judgment on the wicked, and He is righteous to do so, and at the same time have mercy on some so as to save them.

Sorry, it would be a totally lack of Love on God’s part to as you describe: “Have mercy on just some and not all”.

He's writing to the Roman church, which he knows contains people who claim to be Christians but are not. That condition exists today as well.

The “Church” are only Christians, which Paul will list and the church is not a meeting group or meeting place.

I'm not sure what your point here is, as it's not clear.
There was a time I was lost, not saved, a sinner, and hater of God. While I was in my sinful state, I did indeed reject the ransom payment (many times). What I am saying is that when I finally did accept the gift, it was divine imposition.

But I think you are agreeing that atonement is limited to those who accept it, as effective application. Right?

The atonement process is limited and incomplete for those who refuse the ransom payment, but the ransom itself is for all.

If God imposed upon you to take the gift then you never humbly accepted the charity as a free will act?

 

[tdidymas]

You are not reading what I said or I am just not communicating something to you: “All mature adults are gifted with the ability to place trust (faith) in something or someone, but it is up to them to direct that faith toward God.”

Having the ability and doing it is not the same thing. Under your doctrine having the ability and it happening is the same?

I did not say: "’mature adults’ as you say are sinners”, but all mature adults have sinned, but some become Christians and thus are not “sinners”, but Christians.

Yes, I am reading what you wrote. When I asked you to define "mature adults" your response was "Those who have sinned." That's the same thing as saying they are sinners, unless you are couching part of your definition.

I think your idea of "mature adults" is not Biblical. From a Biblical perspective, there are believers and unbelievers. Therefore I am suspicious of you focusing in on something I don't see taught in the pages of scripture. I am hesitant to support that term with your definition with any response to it. The Biblical view of people is that there are believers in Christ, who the apostle Paul calls "spiritual" people, and there are unbelievers who he calls "the natural man."

So, your definition of "mature adults" being gifted to place faith in something or someone doesn't fit the Biblical paradigm. The way I read scripture is that the only people who believe in Christ are the ones who have the gift of faith by God's grace through the Holy Spirit's work. Therefore, this is where our paths diverge.

This “someone” can have a faith that can figuratively move mountains, so yes, he can direct it away from an idol that can do nothing for him toward the Creator of the Universe even if he does not know for sure who He is.

"Figuratively move mountains"? Paul is using that expression to make a point. He is exaggerating the claims of those professing faith, saying that "even if I could do this, but don't have love, that kind of faith doesn't save." Paul is teaching discernment of who is a true believer and who isn't. The one showing the spiritual fruit of love has the Spirit of God. Therefore, your assumption that he is talking about a person who actually has or could have faith like that is false. Your hypothesis doesn't fit the context.

Under your scenario if the person does not direct his faith toward God it is God’s fault.

False conclusion, as I explained before.

What is the biblical definition of “work” you use? God saves you, so faith alone does not save you and He is not faith, but faith allows God to shower you with gifts which includes salvation, so in that sense faith results in salvation.

James 2:14 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" James defines works as meeting the needs of people, that is, loving your neighbor. That's works of love. Paul uses the term in the same way.

Ok, are we getting somewhere here? You said "God saves you." Are you admitting that in the salvation of a person that God does a work in that person which is spiritual and supernatural by nature? I think from several of you guys contending with me, I've yet to get any of you to admit that this happens in the salvation, and specifically the regeneration of individuals.

So then, do you believe that the regeneration of an individual is a spiritual event, and not a natural event? Do you believe that regeneration requires God to act on a person in addition to the hearing of the gospel by the natural ears?

No it does not say what you are saying, exactly! The soldier of satan an unbelieving sinner is hostile to God and he does not submit to God’s law (God is tell us to be unselfish), but he can be willing to accept pure undeserved charity from his enemy (God).

At this point, I would like to get a definition from you as to exactly what this "undeserved charity" is you are talking about.

The way I read Paul is that if someone is God's enemy, he won't accept anything from Him.

Knowledge of God, Christ and the gospel does not produce faith, but I agree that believing in a Love great enough to extend any charity to a hostile, disobedient, rebellious, undeserving sinner is not logical, but it is God.

God extends common grace to mankind, since He "causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good..." and it is without the world's consent that He does so. The nature of unconditional love that God commands us to love our neighbors by, doesn't require their consent to do so. "If you love those who love you, what good is that to you (in regard to eternal life)? Even pagans do that." Unconditional love is an action that does good to one's neighbor regardless of what his reaction is. And sometimes they hate you for it. Will you still bless them, and keep praying for them? Yes, God is like this.

But we aren't talking about common grace and love as a fruit of the Spirit. We're talking about how a person obtains faith to begin with, at least that's what I am talking about, since this is what the OP is about.

I am just sowing the good news or bad news.

Maybe.

What scripture are you using to show faith is not faith?

I said don't confuse the 2 kinds of seed, which are the ones you sow and the ones that God sows. This was in response to your statement "The kind of seed you are sowing (one from the Spirit and the other from satan) determines your salvation, but you did not make the seed." You don't see the difference? The seed from the Spirit is not one you sow, it's one God sows.

James 2:14 "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?" Here is an example of faith that is not faith. If Paul can say "Not all Israel is Israel," meaning that some are God's people spiritually and some not, then James can talk about faith in the same manner, where one kind of faith is only a claim but does not produce the works of obeying Christ. One faith is genuine and one is not. So in this sense there is a "faith that is not faith."

Soldiers in battle will accept pure undeserved charity from the enemy all the time and like it.

What "pure undeserved charity" are you talking about in this case? Do you have examples? I'm somewhat suspicious of your idea, because currently soldiers are not allowed to accept gifts from the enemy because it is a conflict of interest.

But beside of that, we aren't talking about natural things when discussing spiritual salvation.

God is just and He is described that way, so for God to treat two people alike, in the areas that you feel matters, differently would not be just, so He cannot do that without lying.

Here our paths diverge. You claim that God has to treat everyone alike in order to be just. But this is simply not true. It's your judgment of what justice is, and your opinion. It's the opinion of the modern culture. The Bible is full of examples where God did not treat everyone alike. See 1 Cor. 1 for an example. So if you insist that justice requires God to treat everyone the same, then I can't go with you here.

Justice and mercy can be totally compatible and equal for all for God, in every situation and are under my scenario.

The problem with this idea is that justice and mercy are not the same, and do not have the same requirements for each, since mercy is an exception to justice. Justice is common, but mercy is uncommon. Therefore, God can be just and not have the same mercy on everyone alike.

You keep throughout things out I am really not disagreeing with you on like I agree: “No man will ever be willing to accept the gospel unless God interrupts their life by a spiritual act.” It is not the “gospel” they are accept, but just the willingness to accept pure charity (a small hand out from their enemy), they are not asking to be children of God.

I need you to define "pure charity" in no uncertain terms, because I don't see what you're talking about, if not about the grace of God bestowed on individuals.

Sorry, it would be a totally lack of Love on God’s part to as you describe: “Have mercy on just some and not all”.

I disagree. The nature of mercy is that it's an exception to justice. This idea is taught in Rom. 9.

The “Church” are only Christians, which Paul will list and the church is not a meeting group or meeting place.

I disagree. Paul is writing to people who may or may not be Christians, as I explained before. Jesus would agree, seeing He gave us the parable of the wheat/tares and others.

The atonement process is limited and incomplete for those who refuse the ransom payment, but the ransom itself is for all.

If God imposed upon you to take the gift then you never humbly accepted the charity as a free will act?

Jesus' ransom can potentially cover everyone, but it doesn't in reality; it covers only true believers. So in this I think we're in agreement.

Your 2nd statement I disagree with. I already explained that the will of man is not free in the sense you claim. "The whole world is under the control of the evil one" - John made this statement in reference to who believes and who doesn't. God must do something to individuals to enable them to believe, that is, to free their minds from Satan's control. This is a spiritual matter, not a natural one. Just because you see yourself able to make choices in the natural realm, doesn't automatically mean you have the ability to make free choices in the spiritual realm. So, your idea that an enemy of God is able to "humbly accept pure charity" is IMO pure nonsense.
TD

 

[bling]

Y, unless you are couching part of your definition.

No some were “sinners” as Christians you are not a “sinner” even if you do “sin” again, but you were a previous sinner. Sinners do not go to heaven.

I think your idea of "mature adults" is not Biblical.

There is the innocent, who have not sinned. Jonah 4: 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?”

Babies, the unborn, and the mentally handicapped are not mature adults and cannot “do” things like believe, obey, speak, listen, and all the stuff which condemns us or goes toward our being saved. Everyone, I have found excludes these individuals and others from the commands of scriptures, but I am interested in how would you include them? Is the unborn baby condemned to hell for not confession Christ?

Therefore, this is where our paths diverge.

Does the nonbelieving sinner have “a” faith in something?

You are saying some “special” unique “saving faith” is only provided to some people, but the fact all mature adults are told to believe suggests it is within their power to believe. Where in scripture do you fine this special faith being granted to only some?

False conclusion, as I explained before.

I am not “concluding” anything just restating a deferent way what you are describing. No you did not explain it away, tell me this: “Why is God not the deciding factor?”

If God is the deciding factor by providing only some with faith and others not having faith, than it would be His fault?

I've yet to get any of you to admit that this happens in the salvation, and specifically the regeneration of individuals.

Yes, God works in showering the person with tons of gifts, including the Spirit, eternal life, Godly type Love and the regeneration of the individual, BUT the person made the choice to allow (accept) God to do it, with some refuse to accept.

Do you believe that regeneration requires God to act on a person in addition to the hearing of the gospel by the natural ears?

The hearing and believing (trusting their enemy’s Love) is what the person is doing. The other God is doing.

At this point, I would like to get a definition from you as to exactly what this "undeserved charity" is you are talking about.

The “undeserved charity” are the gifts God showers on the sinner who: wimps out, gives up and surrenders to his enemy (God) which include: being regenerated, Godly type Love, salvation, power, the indwelling Holy Spirit, a birthright to heaven, a purpose, being a child of God, a new family, and really everything good and wonderful with nothing left to give except actually living in heaven.

The way I read Paul is that if someone is God's enemy, he won't accept anything from Him.

Where does it say: “sinners cannot accept charity for selfish reasons”?

Yes, God is like this.

Very good! God is the epitome of this Love and Loves everyone like this, but not everyone humbly accepts God’s charity as charity and thus the transaction is never completed. A sinner is not Loved by God, because the sinner does not accept God’s Love as charity, but this is not God’s fault since God is doing His part perfectly. This can best be seen in the Loving forgiveness of the unaccepting servant, Matt.18.

But we aren't talking about common grace and love as a fruit of the Spirit.

The fruit of the Spirit translated often as “faith” from the same Greek word translated “faithfulness” would better be translated “Faithfulness” in Galatians 5:22 (NIV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,.

Godly type Love is very special and a fruit that grows with use.

You are right we have discussed: “How people obtain faith”, but we know all mature adults do have faith in somethings and some people, so the question would be better asked how do they obtain a “saving faith” or did God already gift you with the ability to take the faith you do have and direct it toward the Love of God and make it a saving faith?

The seed from the Spirit is not one you sow, it's one God sows.

Paul is talking about us sowing something and there are not three choices but only two.

currently soldiers are not allowed to accept gifts from the enemy because it is a conflict of interest.

Soldiers that surrender can take “gifts” (like food, clothes and shelter) from their enemy, but with God the gifts are unbelievably huge.

Here our paths diverge. You claim that God has to treat everyone alike in order to be just. But this is simply not true. See 1 Cor. 1 for an example. So if you insist that justice requires God to treat everyone the same, then I can't go with you here.

Please help me! I am not finding anything in 1 Cor.1 where God is treating anyone differently in the area that truly matters (salvation). No one is going to be able to say: I used my wisdom, smarts, knowledge, money, and connections to become a Christian. The lowliest mature adult on earth can but their trust in a benevolent Creator, so for the noble, powerful, rich, wise, educated to trust in a benevolent Creator is a humbling act which anyone can do (equality). Who has the advantage? Some people think my problems would be solved if I: was smarter, healthier, wiser, richer and had better connections, but those that have those things can also see the lack of security in those things, so who comes out ahead? The poor have the advantage of being more willing to accept pure charity, but the rich and smarter have the advantage of knowing they need something spiritual since carnal things do not solve their anxiety.

The problem with this idea is that justice and mercy are not the same, and do not have the same requirements for each, since mercy is an exception to justice. Justice is common, but mercy is uncommon. Therefore, God can be just and not have the same mercy on everyone alike.

I am not suggesting justice and mercy are the same, where did you get that idea? No, mercy is not an “exception to justice”! As a parent I want to be very merciful and yet very equal in justice toward my children. That does not mean I treat them exactly the same way every time, since they have different personalities and temperament. I am not perfect with this, but I am not God.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Tiffany vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair treatment? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Tiffany vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So, was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

Did your father show a merciful Love for the neighbor?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

I need you to define "pure charity" in no uncertain terms, because I don't see what you're talking about, if not about the grace of God bestowed on individuals.

“Pure Charity” differs from lots of other so-called charitable acts. It is real charity (unconditional, undeserved and really sacrificial.

I disagree. The nature of mercy is that it's an exception to justice. This idea is taught in Rom. 9.

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

The Jews were given a higher position on earth, but with that position came added responsibility which they poorly handled. I do not see them in Rome having any advantage over the gentile Christians, but what do you think?

I disagree. Paul is writing to people who may or may not be Christians, as I explained before. Jesus would agree, seeing He gave us the parable of the wheat/tares and others.

The tares were not Christians and Paul is addressing only Christians and not just anyone who shows up at the meeting place.

So, your idea that an enemy of God is able to "humbly accept pure charity" is IMO pure nonsense.

You are not present good scripture support for your conclusion that: sinner cannot "humbly accept pure charity", like we are all called upon to do. It is not just to call upon us to do something we cannot make happen? Yes, we will need help to do the stuff, but that help is up to us allowing God to help us.

 

[tdidymas]

It’s gotten too long, so here’s part 1 of 2:

No some were “sinners” as Christians you are not a “sinner” even if you do “sin” again, but you were a previous sinner. Sinners do not go to heaven.

It sounds like you're saying "mature adults" are people who are either sinners or Christians, so your term is redundant or not relevant. Why not just say Christians and non-Christians? It would certainly make conversation easier to keep to the same terminology that everyone else does. If you have a certain point or distinction in using that term, then please explain it clearly so that people can understand where you're coming from. I would appreciate not making it more complicated than it is.

There is the innocent, who have not sinned. Jonah 4: 11 And should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left—and also many animals?"



Babies, the unborn, and the mentally handicapped are not mature adults and cannot “do” things like believe, obey, speak, listen, and all the stuff which condemns us or goes toward our being saved. Everyone, I have found excludes these individuals and others from the commands of scriptures, but I am interested in how would you include them? Is the unborn baby condemned to hell for not confession Christ?

We're not talking about innocent or mentally handicapped. If any of them are saved, then obviously God saved them without their permission or consent. I don't think the OP had that in mind. We're talking about the average person like you and me. So it appears to me that your term "mature adult" is just not relevant to this conversation. It should be Christian or non-Christian, or believer vs unbeliever, saved/unsaved, born again, not born again. These are Biblical terms and thus avoids throwing a monkey wrench into the conversation.

Does the nonbelieving sinner have “a” faith in something?



You are saying some “special” unique “saving faith” is only provided to some people, but the fact all mature adults are told to believe suggests it is within their power to believe. Where in scripture do you fine this special faith being granted to only some?

I already talked about different kinds of faith based on what Paul and James wrote. Isn't it obvious that if James said "can that faith save him," that he is talking about a different faith than the faith that saves? And this is where the term "saving faith" comes from, in contrast to common faith that doesn't save, in which about every religion, including many who call themselves Christians, define as the faith they practice. And if Paul says that we are saved through faith, then this cannot be the same faith that doesn't save (per James). The fact that some have this saving faith and others don't shows that it is the gift of God.

I am not “concluding” anything just restating a deferent way what you are describing. No you did not explain it away, tell me this: “Why is God not the deciding factor?”



If God is the deciding factor by providing only some with faith and others not having faith, than it would be His fault?

Suppose 2 people are about to commit suicide. One person you save by actively preventing them from carrying it out. The other you don't actively prevent them, but you let them do it of their own "free will." Does that make you guilty of their suicide? Does the fact that the 2nd one commits suicide your fault, since you were the "deciding factor"?



Suffice it to say that what a person does is their own responsibility. Criminals don't take responsibility for what they do, but they always shift the blame. And this is essentially what you are doing when you claim that saving or not saving by God is the deciding factor, that it makes God guilty of the sin of unbelief of those not saved. It is shifting the blame to God who is blameless in the responsibility of their condemnation.



No, God is not responsible for the sin or unbelief of the unbeliever. It was their choice, so they alone are responsible for their own condemnation. If God had chosen not to have mercy on some, He would be perfectly just in doing so. Having mercy on some does not in any way obligate God to have the same mercy on others. To think He does have that obligation (or obligates Himself in that) is nonsense, even if it "seems fair" to people. If you read Rom. 9 carefully, you can see that God does not have the same mercy to all.



Back to the suicide case, one might argue that if you could prevent the 2nd one from committing suicide, but didn't, then you would be sinning. But such a thing is not a moral requirement. You might be guilty of lack of compassion, or of enjoying watching them commit suicide, but those reasons don't apply to God, since He is not a sinful human being. God in fact watches people commit suicide, and stands back letting sinners get away with all kinds of sin, and although is able supernaturally to prevent many deaths, choses not to do so. That doesn't make God responsible for the crimes committed.



I hope this puts to bed the idea that God is at fault if He is the deciding factor whether one is saved or not. Certainly He is the deciding factor of someone being saved, but the "deciding factor" of someone condemned is himself, except that God will send him to the lake of fire, and then He is the deciding factor on that matter.

Yes, God works in showering the person with tons of gifts, including the Spirit, eternal life, Godly type Love and the regeneration of the individual, BUT the person made the choice to allow (accept) God to do it, with some refuse to accept.

You keep saying this, but it requires interpretation. I'm talking about how a person gets the faith in the first place. I'm talking about why some choose to accept God's mercy and others don't. If a person makes the choice to "allow" God to do it (as if God was asking their permission - hardly), why are they making that choice? What in their life led up to that point of their decision? And the same with those who reject it.



It seems to me that you think a person's choice is based on some neutral ground, and that all influences are equal, and equally considerable, and equally considered, and that a person rationally reasons out his greatest advantage, and then makes his choice (without any further force or influence from God). This is what the idea of "free will" faith and salvation is all about. This idea is not Biblical and doesn't follow Paul's teaching, as I have been explaining.

The hearing and believing (trusting their enemy’s Love) is what the person is doing. The other God is doing.

I say that herein is your error, since you continue to fail to acknowledge the spiritual element in a person's "hearing." Jesus said many times "he who has ears to hear, let him hear." This shows a spiritual element in the gospel that Paul makes the distinction in 1 Cor. 1 and 2. But if you were to acknowledge that distinction, then you would have to deal with how people get those ears to hear.

The “undeserved charity” are the gifts God showers on the sinner who: wimps out, gives up and surrenders to his enemy (God) which include: being regenerated, Godly type Love, salvation, power, the indwelling Holy Spirit, a birthright to heaven, a purpose, being a child of God, a new family, and really everything good and wonderful with nothing left to give except actually living in heaven.

The problem is in how a person gets to giving up and surrendering, which requires faith in Christ. All you list here requires faith to begin with in order to receive it (according to your reasoning). How does a person believe in a God they don't believe, if God is not revealing Himself to them?

Where does it say: “sinners cannot accept charity for selfish reasons”?

James 1:6-7 "But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord" - Can you see it requires faith to receive anything from God? Sinners are unbelieving by nature, therefore they cannot receive anything from God, unless God gives them something "without their permission."

Very good! God is the epitome of this Love and Loves everyone like this, but not everyone humbly accepts God’s charity as charity and thus the transaction is never completed. A sinner is not Loved by God, because the sinner does not accept God’s Love as charity, but this is not God’s fault since God is doing His part perfectly. This can best be seen in the Loving forgiveness of the unaccepting servant, Matt.18.

Don't you mean "unforgiveness in the accepting servant"? I don't see what you claim in that chapter. The unforgiving servant is a parable about who is operating in the kingdom of Christ and who isn't. I don't see it teaching a "loving forgiveness of the unaccepting servant," as you call it.



But now, you appear to agree with my idea that God is not responsible for people not accepting God's charity (grace). But let me hand it back to you - if God is not loving the sinner as you said, then according to your reasoning it's God's fault, since this is the same conclusion you gave me earlier concerning God giving grace to some and not others.



But now I do see a problem with your reasoning here. By saying God doesn't love sinners, but does love those who accept His charity, you are implying that grace is merited. Can you see this? If I reject God's charity, then God doesn't love me. If I accept His charity, then He loves me. You're saying God's love is conditional and merited, which is the ramification of your statement. Is this what you really believe?

The fruit of the Spirit translated often as “faith” from the same Greek word translated “faithfulness” would better be translated “Faithfulness” in Galatians 5:22 (NIV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,.



Godly type Love is very special and a fruit that grows with use.



You are right we have discussed: “How people obtain faith”, but we know all mature adults do have faith in somethings and some people, so the question would be better asked how do they obtain a “saving faith” or did God already gift you with the ability to take the faith you do have and direct it toward the Love of God and make it a saving faith?

This is a deep question, and so it is worthwhile IMO to stick to what the Bible says about it, because there are probably a million different opinions on the subject, since everyone has a different experience.

Paul is talking about us sowing something and there are not three choices but only two.

There are two kinds of seeds, one you sow:

Gal. 6:7 "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

And one God sows:

James 1:18 "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth." and 1 Pet. 1:23 "for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."



In Gal. 6:7, Paul is not teaching salvation by works, which would be the seed you sow. The analogy concerns a farmer planting seeds, which is the work a farmer does in view of a future harvest. So then, what is the point of Paul's analogy, if he is NOT saying we work for our salvation?



In the context of that chapter, he is talking about working in the kingdom. So then, v. 7 is about who is a genuine worker and who is not. And since the kind of faith you have in God determines whether you are genuine or a hypocrite, this verse shows us who is and who isn't. This is very much the same type of warning as in 1 John, James, Jude, Hebrews and elsewhere. It's a warning to those who may erroneously reason "all things are lawful."

TD