Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Part 2 of 2:
Soldiers that surrender can take “gifts” (like food, clothes and shelter) from their enemy, but with God the gifts are unbelievably huge.

Your analogy still doesn't fit, because they surrendered under duress, and they are still the enemy. In God's kingdom, the ones He saves are His friends, not His enemies any more. These are the only ones who surrender to Him, since that's a spiritual matter.

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.

1Co 1:27-29 "but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God."

Can you see that God is treating some differently than others? Can you see that when men are full of ego, pride, knowledge, etc. which the world considers as regarding a high self-esteem, that God shames those people by saving the poor, the foolish, the uneducated, the ignoble, etc.? Well, those people don't feel shamed, but they certainly will be in the day of judgment.

v. 30-31 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”"

And here Paul seals the idea by saying that our being in Christ is "His doing." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our faith in Christ is not "our doing."

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?

There are some things lacking in your analogy:

1. The son is in the family, so he would naturally be treated differently than a stranger.

2. The father knows the son, but doesn't know the stranger, so it is highly unlikely they be treated the same.

3. If the son refused to work with the father, it is highly unlikely that the father would send the son to jail.

4. Sin against God is a rebellion against the ultimate just and holy one, unlike some man committing vandalism against another. Therefore, the just responses are unequal.

5. What the son did was in a hot fit of anger, a crime of passion. What the neighbor did was in cold-hearted premeditated hate. Unequal crimes requiring unequal responses.

6. The hate of the neighbor puts him at a disadvantage from reconciliation, seeing that he makes himself an enemy, in contrast to the son who is willing to participate in the restoration because he already loves his father and believes in him.

Need I go on?

I think I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't fit in Rom. 9. God still has mercy on whomever He pleases, and it doesn't depend on what is in man. God's sovereignty in salvation is the point of that chapter. If 2 neighbors did the same thing, and they were both equal in unfriendliness, would you think yourself unjust if you had mercy on one and not the other? The difference in your actions would be considered whimsical or capricious, but God's ways are higher than ours. Since God is the creator, He has the right to condemn one for his sin and have mercy on another.

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

Ok, so it appears you do believe in unmerited grace, but it appears contradictory to what you said earlier, in which I am pointing out that what you say appears like merited grace.

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

No, I disagree. Paul writes that there are sins in which people will not inherit the kingdome of God - that is, eternal life. This presumes that some people in the church who reads this or hears it read are hypocrites who need a call to repentance. It's the same today.

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.

For support of my idea I am using Rom. 3:10-18, Eph. 2:12, 1 Cor. 1:21, Rom. 8:7, Deu. 32:41, Prov. 8:36, and many others. The whole problem with your "humbly accept pure charity" idea is that it requires faith in God and some level of love for God already before one is willing and able to do it. The unregenerate don't believe, since that's a spiritual matter. It takes an act of God to get them to faith in order to do what you say here.

TD:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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?
A baby is not an adult, mature or Christian, but if I say a baby is a non-Christian it sounds like he is hell bound.

A mentally challenged person can be an adult but not mature.
We're not talking about innocent or mentally handicapped. .
I would say the innocent and mentally handicapped are not “saved”, but in a safe condition, since they have not sinned.
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? .
No, when James says: “can that faith save him," he is not saying the person has “no faith” but only a faith directed toward God, will save him. Faith changes and can grow and starts out small and weak.

“Faith” was a “gift of God” given to all mature adults, but it has to be directed toward God to be a saving faith.

You cannot say: “the faith all people have cannot be directed toward God to become a saving faith”, by just showing some people do not direct this faith toward God. Scripture does not say: “the faith a nonbeliever has cannot become a saving faith”. The fact: all people are told to believe in God/Christ’s Love, suggest it is up to them to do so. Yes, we have lots of commands we cannot do immediately, but there again it is up to us to accept the help we need.
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"?
I am not the deciding factor and in this case the individual is making a free will choice so it is not “all” my fault, I did not pull the trigger.

I personally can be held partially responsible knowing a person is most likely going to die, if I could just as easily and safely helped that person, but God is not in that same situation.

God is providing life here on earth for everyone every moment and can just stop providing life at any time for any one.

Death is not bad in and of itself, it is the way good people go home and bad people quit doing bad stuff.

So how long an individual does live and how long an individual should live is determined by what factors?

If a mature adult nonbeliever has been given the opportunities to humbly accept God’s help but has repeatedly refused to accept God’s charity to the point they would never accept God’s charity (this is something God could realize), then that person no longer needs to be on earth to fulfill his objective since he will never fulfill his objective, but he can stay. This sinner will remain on earth possibly without any free will to help those still willing individuals to seek God’s help quickly, before it is too late. As an example: why would a sinner commits suicide? There is a lesson and an opportunity in this which can be: we have emphasized we all need God’s help and/or we as Christians should be doing more to help those depressed and hurting. This tragedy can be very much my responsibility and opportunity lost, since that person did commit suicide.

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.
I am not blaming God for our sinning. The believer and unbeliever both are guilty of their sins, but under your scenario God is responsible for the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever and that would be unjust.

Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

This messed up world (Christ having to go to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death, and our sinning) is the very best situation for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective, so God allows it to continue.


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.
Justice is treating equal people equally in the areas which really matter. I think I have already briefly explained Ro. 9 but just to remind you the diatribe question is 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
God’s Love has obligated God to be just and Paul says He is just.
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.
Yes, it would be a sin if you did not try to help if you did not have greater priorities.
God is the one providing (allowing) you this opportunity.

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.
No it does not.
The one being saved condemned himself the same as the one lost, where is the difference in the individuals?
If God is the deciding factor of someone being saved, then He is automatically the deciding factor in who is lost, it is either/or, there is no way around that truism?

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.
1. All mature adults are gifted with a “general faith”, which we seem to agree on. We differ in the idea of that “general faith” being able to become a saving faith by being directed toward God versus the need for another “faith” which God provides only to some. If it is up to the individual to direct this “general faith” toward God to become a “saving faith”, then everyone can be asked to do just that, since it is up to them, but if it is not within the power of the individual than it would be wrong to ask them to do it. Even being told not to sin is within the person’s power to accomplish through asking for God’s help and accepting that help as charity.

2. The “reason” people are given this singular simple autonomous free will choice is to allow them to be like God Himself in that they can have a Godly type Love. If a being does not have this autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s Love for them, with likely alternatives, then they cannot Love just a little like God is Loves. Godly type Love is not instinctive (robotic) and God would not want a bunch of robots running around saying they “love” Him. Also, God cannot force a person to Love Him, since that would not be Loving on God’s part and the “love” obtained would not be Godly type Love. The only way to obtain this Love is here on earth: sinning, seeking God’s undeserved forgiveness, accepting God’s forgiveness as pure charity of an unbelievable huge debt and thus automatically obtaining an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) Luke 7 Jesus’ teaching.

3. I am not saying we all start out “equal”, because the choice is individual, so it is totally personally designed for the individual to either make some time in his/her life or not be made and go to heaven without Godly type Love, yet after helping others with their choice.

Where am I not being Biblical?


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.
"he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

This comes from Is. 6:10 which is proceeded by: 9 He said, “Go and tell this people:

This saying of Christ is repeating the warning to the Jews of many prophets of old: Jer. 6:10 To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed, so they cannot hear. The word of the Lord is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.

The words were heard but offended the Jews and they found no pleasure in them, so they heard them but personally did not like them, so they did not heed the warning. Jesus id not saying this of all people at all times, but explains: the Jews do not hear the message because the Jews do not like the message.

You cannot generalize this to all nonbelievers for all the times.

I think I have been over 1 Cor. 1 and 2 already, which does not say all nonbelieving sinners cannot trust God’s love, but does say: “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. It does not say: “by the power of the holy Spirit they were made believers.


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?
Everyone has some faith as we seem to agree, I am saying they just need to direct it toward God. God lives in you and through you revealing Himself to the people around you.
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."
God is giving them the opportunity to accept His gifts without their permission, but they do have to accept pure charity as charity. This person can doubt all he wants that it would be even possible for God to be so Loving. The disobedient rebellious sinner should not “expect” to get anything from God and he sure does not deserve it. James is talking about Christians doubting.

Are you saying: the unbelieving sinner after given this new “faith” asks in faith “expecting” to receive eternal life, Love and to be a child of God?
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.
Matt. 18 has: God the father doing His part perfectly in the unconditional, selfless forgiving of the servant that owes a truly unbelievable large some of money (there would be no way anyone could come close to pay off such a huge debt).

BUT, forgiveness does not take place since the servant does not Love with an unbelievable huge Love (the truism Jesus taught in Luke 7) and the fact the servant in the end still owes the King the huge unpayable debt.

This shows: Forgiveness (Love) is not just one way (similar to the salvation is not just one way) it is a transaction requiring the potential receiver of forgiveness to humbly accept the forgiveness (Love) as pure charity. The words of the servant tell us he was not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but was asking for more time and lied by saying he would pay in full with more time. The servant was not humbly accepting charity, but must have left thinking he personally persuaded the king into giving him more time or the king really liked him or something else.

Yes, God is not responsible for the person not accepting His charity and God is also not responsible for the person accepting His charity since that is the free will choice of the person.

God is Loving the sinner?

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?
God Loves everyone, but some do not accept His Love.

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."
Right, Paul is not talking about salvation by works. There are obviously different kinds of seed, so supplied by God and some supplied by satan. In Paul’s analogy there are only two things people are doing all the time (which we see and experience in life). We are doing good stuff or bad stuff all the time 24/7 even our example of when, where and how long we sleep. The last seeds you sow (even if it is one seed) is the harvest that counts either eternal life or hell, not how big it is.

The point is: Paul is not emphasizing the labor of sowing, but the seed being sown, since we all sow all the time as examples. The Christians in Galatia would realize Paul was not talking about laboring to sow seed, but watch out what seed you are sowing, since the amount of seed does not matter.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Your analogy still doesn't fit, because they surrendered under duress, and they are still the enemy. In God's kingdom, the ones He saves are His friends, not His enemies any more. These are the only ones who surrender to Him, since that's a spiritual matter.
The soldier of satan who surrenders is not immediately entering God’s kingdom, so he is still hating his enemy God. Part of the charity given the soldier is entrance into the Kingdom as a child. Like the prodigal son just turning to the father did not immediately bring him into the father’s house.

1Co 1:27-29 "but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God."

Can you see that God is treating some differently than others? Can you see that when men are full of ego, pride, knowledge, etc. which the world considers as regarding a high self-esteem, that God shames those people by saving the poor, the foolish, the uneducated, the ignoble, etc.? Well, those people don't feel shamed, but they certainly will be in the day of judgment.
NO! I do not see God treating people differently from 1 Cor. 1:27-29. All people start out with some self-reliance and knowledge. The lowliest mature adult on earth can trust (believe) in a benevolent Creator, so from the richest and smartest to the lowliest they all have to believe to be saved. Rich, powerful, popular, will educated and wise in the world will be humbled by the fact of how little all these things do to provide happiness, meaning and add one moment to their life. The poor might already have experienced humility, but can thing wealth, power, education and other things would make them happy and thus skip Christ to pursue other things. They both can and must do the same thing, but which has it easier?
v. 30-31 "But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”"
Right, but that happens for everyone who comes. I have taught the poor and the rich and coming to the Lord is the same. Who can “boast” about accepting pure charity?
And here Paul seals the idea by saying that our being in Christ is "His doing." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that our faith in Christ is not "our doing."
No he does not.

There are some things lacking in your analogy:

1. The son is in the family, so he would naturally be treated differently than a stranger.

2. The father knows the son, but doesn't know the stranger, so it is highly unlikely they be treated the same.

3. If the son refused to work with the father, it is highly unlikely that the father would send the son to jail.

4. Sin against God is a rebellion against the ultimate just and holy one, unlike some man committing vandalism against another. Therefore, the just responses are unequal.

5. What the son did was in a hot fit of anger, a crime of passion. What the neighbor did was in cold-hearted premeditated hate. Unequal crimes requiring unequal responses.

6. The hate of the neighbor puts him at a disadvantage from reconciliation, seeing that he makes himself an enemy, in contrast to the son who is willing to participate in the restoration because he already loves his father and believes in him.
I was not trying to have a perfect analogy, but just trying to show the difference between being disciplined and being punished and yet still be equal (fair/just). Some times you do have to show tough Love to your child and have them pay the consequences. Maybe two neighbors would be better or two children.

When it comes to God and man: God as our Father needs, if at all possible, to justly/fairly discipline us so we can have all the benefits of a fair/just disciplining (being crucified with Christ), but if we refuse to accept God’s just discipline we will be punished (hell). These are different but equal in a way, since the severer punishment of hell includes the refusing of the loving discipline.

I think I see what you are trying to say, but it doesn't fit in Rom. 9. God still has mercy on whomever He pleases, and it doesn't depend on what is in man. God's sovereignty in salvation is the point of that chapter. If 2 neighbors did the same thing, and they were both equal in unfriendliness, would you think yourself unjust if you had mercy on one and not the other? The difference in your actions would be considered whimsical or capricious, but God's ways are higher than ours. Since God is the creator, He has the right to condemn one for his sin and have mercy on another.
I explained Ro. 9 in post 599, so comment on that.

Yes I would be very unjust if I have mercy on one and not the other and so would God be. Paul describes God to the Roman Christians as being “just” and does not use another word or define the word “just” some other way. Paul would be an extremely poor communicator to call God “just” and not mean God is just by the meanings used in scripture. Where is “just” in scripture describing whimsical and/or capricious behavior (as you describe)?

Ok, so it appears you do believe in unmerited grace, but it appears contradictory to what you said earlier, in which I am pointing out that what you say appears like merited grace.
I am not the best communicator because I fully believe in unmerited grace.

No, I disagree. Paul writes that there are sins in which people will not inherit the kingdome of God - that is, eternal life. This presumes that some people in the church who reads this or hears it read are hypocrites who need a call to repentance. It's the same today.
Is the “church” the people who go to the building or the believers in the building?

You say: “some people in the church who reads this or hears it read are hypocrites who need a call to repentance.” Suppose they do not repent will they be lost?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
A baby is not an adult, mature or Christian, but if I say a baby is a non-Christian it sounds like he is hell bound.

A mentally challenged person can be an adult but not mature.

I would say the innocent and mentally handicapped are not “saved”, but in a safe condition, since they have not sinned.
I don't think any of this is relevant to what we're talking about.

No, when James says: “can that faith save him," he is not saying the person has “no faith” but only a faith directed toward God, will save him. Faith changes and can grow and starts out small and weak.

“Faith” was a “gift of God” given to all mature adults, but it has to be directed toward God to be a saving faith.

You cannot say: “the faith all people have cannot be directed toward God to become a saving faith”, by just showing some people do not direct this faith toward God. Scripture does not say: “the faith a nonbeliever has cannot become a saving faith”. The fact: all people are told to believe in God/Christ’s Love, suggest it is up to them to do so. Yes, we have lots of commands we cannot do immediately, but there again it is up to us to accept the help we need.
What you describe here could be applied to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and just about every other religion. They all believe they worship the one and only God. Their faith is directed toward God, and they acknowledge they have needs that He can help with, so do you say they are saved as well?

I am not the deciding factor and in this case the individual is making a free will choice so it is not “all” my fault, I did not pull the trigger.

I personally can be held partially responsible knowing a person is most likely going to die, if I could just as easily and safely helped that person, but God is not in that same situation.

God is providing life here on earth for everyone every moment and can just stop providing life at any time for any one.

Death is not bad in and of itself, it is the way good people go home and bad people quit doing bad stuff.

So how long an individual does live and how long an individual should live is determined by what factors?

If a mature adult nonbeliever has been given the opportunities to humbly accept God’s help but has repeatedly refused to accept God’s charity to the point they would never accept God’s charity (this is something God could realize), then that person no longer needs to be on earth to fulfill his objective since he will never fulfill his objective, but he can stay. This sinner will remain on earth possibly without any free will to help those still willing individuals to seek God’s help quickly, before it is too late. As an example: why would a sinner commits suicide? There is a lesson and an opportunity in this which can be: we have emphasized we all need God’s help and/or we as Christians should be doing more to help those depressed and hurting. This tragedy can be very much my responsibility and opportunity lost, since that person did commit suicide.
Quite honestly, I'm getting weary of all this hypothetical reasoning. I'm done with it, and will stick to what the Bible says from now on. I don't accept your opinion on this.

I am not blaming God for our sinning. The believer and unbeliever both are guilty of their sins, but under your scenario God is responsible for the unbeliever remaining an unbeliever and that would be unjust.

Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

This messed up world (Christ having to go to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, hell, death, and our sinning) is the very best situation for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective, so God allows it to continue.
You missed the point. According to your reasoning, God is to blame, if my soteriology is correct. I say it is correct, therefore you are accusing me of blaming God for the sins of man. Your judgment is false.

So I prefer not to discuss this any further, as you don't seem to accept any explanation.

Justice is treating equal people equally in the areas which really matter. I think I have already briefly explained Ro. 9 but just to remind you the diatribe question is 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
God’s Love has obligated God to be just and Paul says He is just.
I already explained why I do not accept your commentary on Rom. 9. Your principle about God's love obligating God to have the same mercy toward all is a false judgment, I say it simply is not true, which I get from reading Rom. 9. I think your reading of Rom. 9 is forcing your conclusion on the text.

Yes, it would be a sin if you did not try to help if you did not have greater priorities.
God is the one providing (allowing) you this opportunity.
I think God has priorities you don't know anything about, since He said His thoughts are higher than ours. It appears to me you are setting up God's priorities from your own reasoning.

No it does not.
The one being saved condemned himself the same as the one lost, where is the difference in the individuals?
If God is the deciding factor of someone being saved, then He is automatically the deciding factor in who is lost, it is either/or, there is no way around that truism?
Your conclusion that God is the deciding factor in who is lost, therefore their being lost is God's fault, is a false conclusion. Since I explained this previously and you don't accept it, our paths diverge. Therefore I'm ending this part of the conversation.

1. All mature adults are gifted with a “general faith”, which we seem to agree on. We differ in the idea of that “general faith” being able to become a saving faith by being directed toward God versus the need for another “faith” which God provides only to some. If it is up to the individual to direct this “general faith” toward God to become a “saving faith”, then everyone can be asked to do just that, since it is up to them, but if it is not within the power of the individual than it would be wrong to ask them to do it. Even being told not to sin is within the person’s power to accomplish through asking for God’s help and accepting that help as charity.

2. The “reason” people are given this singular simple autonomous free will choice is to allow them to be like God Himself in that they can have a Godly type Love. If a being does not have this autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s Love for them, with likely alternatives, then they cannot Love just a little like God is Loves. Godly type Love is not instinctive (robotic) and God would not want a bunch of robots running around saying they “love” Him. Also, God cannot force a person to Love Him, since that would not be Loving on God’s part and the “love” obtained would not be Godly type Love. The only way to obtain this Love is here on earth: sinning, seeking God’s undeserved forgiveness, accepting God’s forgiveness as pure charity of an unbelievable huge debt and thus automatically obtaining an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love) Luke 7 Jesus’ teaching.

3. I am not saying we all start out “equal”, because the choice is individual, so it is totally personally designed for the individual to either make some time in his/her life or not be made and go to heaven without Godly type Love, yet after helping others with their choice.

Where am I not being Biblical?
You are not Biblical in the idea that the God-kind of love comes out of autonomous free will. The Bible says that love comes from God, and that we love because He first loved us. Therefore it can't come from autonomous free will. This is why we have an ongoing faith relationship with God, because the mere human can't love their enemies without the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding them.

Furthermore, faith arises out of the heart from different influences - knowledge, experience, attitude, and most of all revelation of the Spirit. We don't know where faith comes from, only that we realize we have it. When we are commanded to believe, it's the same as saying for us to realize that we already believe, accept the fact, and surrender to Christ. If you consider deeply about it, how you came to believe (that is, if you really do believe), I think you would have to admit that faith came to you, so it wasn't a voluntary choice of yours.

Here is how faith might be a voluntary choice: a person says to himself, "This message doesn't make any sense to me, so I really don't believe it. Nevertheless, it might have some advantage to me, so I'm going to choose to believe it anyway." Is this how you came to believe? I think that scenario is ludicrous.

"he who has ears to hear, let him hear."

This comes from Is. 6:10 which is proceeded by: 9 He said, “Go and tell this people:

This saying of Christ is repeating the warning to the Jews of many prophets of old: Jer. 6:10 To whom can I speak and give warning? Who will listen to me? Their ears are closed, so they cannot hear. The word of the Lord is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it.

The words were heard but offended the Jews and they found no pleasure in them, so they heard them but personally did not like them, so they did not heed the warning. Jesus id not saying this of all people at all times, but explains: the Jews do not hear the message because the Jews do not like the message.

You cannot generalize this to all nonbelievers for all the times.

I think I have been over 1 Cor. 1 and 2 already, which does not say all nonbelieving sinners cannot trust God’s love, but does say: “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. It does not say: “by the power of the holy Spirit they were made believers.
Yet it clearly states "By His doing are you in Christ Jesus..."

Everyone has some faith as we seem to agree, I am saying they just need to direct it toward God. God lives in you and through you revealing Himself to the people around you.
No, we are not in agreement here. It's a different faith, and someone cannot direct faith toward a God they don't believe.

God is giving them the opportunity to accept His gifts without their permission, but they do have to accept pure charity as charity. This person can doubt all he wants that it would be even possible for God to be so Loving. The disobedient rebellious sinner should not “expect” to get anything from God and he sure does not deserve it. James is talking about Christians doubting.

Are you saying: the unbelieving sinner after given this new “faith” asks in faith “expecting” to receive eternal life, Love and to be a child of God?
I'm saying that the unbelieving sinner is changed to a believing sinner by the Spirit of God, and then since he knows God's promise, He expects it to be fulfilled.

Matt. 18 has: God the father doing His part perfectly in the unconditional, selfless forgiving of the servant that owes a truly unbelievable large some of money (there would be no way anyone could come close to pay off such a huge debt).

BUT, forgiveness does not take place since the servant does not Love with an unbelievable huge Love (the truism Jesus taught in Luke 7) and the fact the servant in the end still owes the King the huge unpayable debt.

This shows: Forgiveness (Love) is not just one way (similar to the salvation is not just one way) it is a transaction requiring the potential receiver of forgiveness to humbly accept the forgiveness (Love) as pure charity. The words of the servant tell us he was not asking for unconditional forgiveness, but was asking for more time and lied by saying he would pay in full with more time. The servant was not humbly accepting charity, but must have left thinking he personally persuaded the king into giving him more time or the king really liked him or something else.

Yes, God is not responsible for the person not accepting His charity and God is also not responsible for the person accepting His charity since that is the free will choice of the person.

God is Loving the sinner?
It sounds like you're saying individuals have absolute control over their eternal destiny, and so whether or not they have eternal life depends on their deeds, whether they accept or reject God's charity. And since you apply the parable to the salvation event, that a person gets saved by getting forgiveness, and then loses their salvation because they didn't forgive another's debt. If you believe this, then I think your kind of salvation is works based.

God Loves everyone, but some do not accept His Love.
Since Paul wrote that before Christians were saved, they were "without God in the world," then I'd say that no one accepted His love in that condition. It took an act of God's grace on their souls to change the disposition of their hearts.

Right, Paul is not talking about salvation by works. There are obviously different kinds of seed, so supplied by God and some supplied by satan. In Paul’s analogy there are only two things people are doing all the time (which we see and experience in life). We are doing good stuff or bad stuff all the time 24/7 even our example of when, where and how long we sleep. The last seeds you sow (even if it is one seed) is the harvest that counts either eternal life or hell, not how big it is.

The point is: Paul is not emphasizing the labor of sowing, but the seed being sown, since we all sow all the time as examples. The Christians in Galatia would realize Paul was not talking about laboring to sow seed, but watch out what seed you are sowing, since the amount of seed does not matter.
I still say he is distinguishing between who's a Christian and who isn't (at least, yet). It is similar to every warning written in the NT.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The soldier of satan who surrenders is not immediately entering God’s kingdom, so he is still hating his enemy God. Part of the charity given the soldier is entrance into the Kingdom as a child. Like the prodigal son just turning to the father did not immediately bring him into the father’s house.
The way I read John 3:3 is that the one born of God sees the kingdom because he is already in it. "Can't see..." means he's not in it. The moment a person believes the gospel, he has already been translated into the kingdom of God, and therefore sees it. However, at that moment he doesn't understand the kingdom, because he has no idea what he's getting himself into. Understanding about being in the kingdom comes later. So I think your conclusions are based on knowledge you have now, and not on what actually happened to you the first time you believed.

NO! I do not see God treating people differently from 1 Cor. 1:27-29. All people start out with some self-reliance and knowledge. The lowliest mature adult on earth can trust (believe) in a benevolent Creator, so from the richest and smartest to the lowliest they all have to believe to be saved. Rich, powerful, popular, will educated and wise in the world will be humbled by the fact of how little all these things do to provide happiness, meaning and add one moment to their life. The poor might already have experienced humility, but can thing wealth, power, education and other things would make them happy and thus skip Christ to pursue other things. They both can and must do the same thing, but which has it easier?
Like I said before, your description could apply to Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Then the only difference with Christians is that they have different information. Do you believe that people of other religions are then saved simply because they put their trust in the one and only God, even though they have been given different information?

Right, but that happens for everyone who comes. I have taught the poor and the rich and coming to the Lord is the same. Who can “boast” about accepting pure charity?
The one who says he accepted it apart from God's work is the one boasting.

No he does not.
Again our paths diverge.

I was not trying to have a perfect analogy, but just trying to show the difference between being disciplined and being punished and yet still be equal (fair/just). Some times you do have to show tough Love to your child and have them pay the consequences. Maybe two neighbors would be better or two children.

When it comes to God and man: God as our Father needs, if at all possible, to justly/fairly discipline us so we can have all the benefits of a fair/just disciplining (being crucified with Christ), but if we refuse to accept God’s just discipline we will be punished (hell). These are different but equal in a way, since the severer punishment of hell includes the refusing of the loving discipline.
Peter wrote that judgment begins in the house of God, so that we will not be judged with the rest of the world. Therefore God is not judging everyone the same, nor at the same time or stage in their lives.

I explained Ro. 9 in post 599, so comment on that.

Yes I would be very unjust if I have mercy on one and not the other and so would God be. Paul describes God to the Roman Christians as being “just” and does not use another word or define the word “just” some other way. Paul would be an extremely poor communicator to call God “just” and not mean God is just by the meanings used in scripture. Where is “just” in scripture describing whimsical and/or capricious behavior (as you describe)?
I got the capricious nature of it from your reasoning, not from scripture. And I disagree with your idea of mercy being unjust if not given to everyone equally. I believe mercy is an exception to justice, and that Rom. 9 teaches that. I do not agree with your commentary on Rom. 9 as I explained before.

I am not the best communicator because I fully believe in unmerited grace.
The basis of your conversation indicates otherwise.

Is the “church” the people who go to the building or the believers in the building?

You say: “some people in the church who reads this or hears it read are hypocrites who need a call to repentance.” Suppose they do not repent will they be lost?
Since there are tares and goats among the sheep, they will be separated at the harvest which is the day of judgment, and of course they will be lost because they are lost.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
What you describe here could be applied to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and just about every other religion. They all believe they worship the one and only God. Their faith is directed toward God, and they acknowledge they have needs that He can help with, so do you say they are saved as well?
We agree they have “faith” and can put their trust in a god. Only the Christian God can do anything for them, so they have to direct that faith/trust toward the Christian God.
Quite honestly, I'm getting weary of all this hypothetical reasoning. I'm done with it, and will stick to what the Bible says from now on. I don't accept your opinion on this.
Who is providing all these opportunities in this world for you to show Love, experience Love, extend Love and be Loved by others? Why do you not cease more of these opportunities?

Just as we realize Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him… We can see God working in everything to help us. Or we can throw up our hands and say: “Only God knows”, which explains nothing.
You missed the point. According to your reasoning, God is to blame, if my soteriology is correct. I say it is correct, therefore you are accusing me of blaming God for the sins of man. Your judgment is false.
God is only to plan if your correct in election and not with my understanding of scripture



I think God has priorities you don't know anything about, since He said His thoughts are higher than ours. It appears to me you are setting up God's priorities from your own reasoning.
God is described as being “Love” (totally unselfish, Loving unconditionally, sacrificially, and the greatest example of Love (Christ)). A Love like that would compel even God to do what He does, but that is also who He is. God would not be doing anything just for His own sake but would do everything for the sake of others which is His own sake also.
Your conclusion that God is the deciding factor in who is lost, therefore their being lost is God's fault, is a false conclusion. Since I explained this previously and you don't accept it, our paths diverge. Therefore I'm ending this part of the conversation.
This salvation decision for others made by anyone else would make the decision maker guilty for the lost, but you are making an unneeded illogical exception.
You are not Biblical in the idea that the God-kind of love comes out of autonomous free will. The Bible says that love comes from God, and that we love because He first loved us. Therefore it can't come from autonomous free will. This is why we have an ongoing faith relationship with God, because the mere human can't love their enemies without the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding them.
I am not saying: “…mere human can't love their enemies without the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding them.” Godly type Love comes after accepting God’s charity. Like Jesus taught us in Luke 7 “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Yes God Loves us first in the form of forgiving us, but God is Loving everyone, so it is only those who free willingly accept God’s forgiveness of their huge unbelievable debt who obtain this Godly type Love automatically from God.


Here is how faith might be a voluntary choice: a person says to himself, "This message doesn't make any sense to me, so I really don't believe it. Nevertheless, it might have some advantage to me, so I'm going to choose to believe it anyway." Is this how you came to believe? I think that scenario is ludicrous.
I was carrying a huge burden from hurting others (sin) in my (God given) conscience (like most people feel sometime in their life) and I really needed help. I wanted and needed there to be a Benevolent Creator, because what I had tried in the past was not working and I could not get rid of this problem on my own. Being desperate I would have humbly accepted help from anyone, so I asked God to help me.
Yet it clearly states "By His doing are you in Christ Jesus..."
God is “doing” everything except he is not forcing us to accept or not accept what he is doing for our own lives.

I'm saying that the unbelieving sinner is changed to a believing sinner by the Spirit of God, and then since he knows God's promise, He expects it to be fulfilled.
The prodigal son was not “expecting” the father to react in such a huge illogical Loving way and even today I have a hard time believing God is as Loving as He is, so it comes unexpecting.
It sounds like you're saying individuals have absolute control over their eternal destiny, and so whether or not they have eternal life depends on their deeds, whether they accept or reject God's charity. And since you apply the parable to the salvation event, that a person gets saved by getting forgiveness, and then loses their salvation because they didn't forgive another's debt. If you believe this, then I think your kind of salvation is works based.
Again, it is not “their deeds” accepting or rejecting a huge gift is not worthy of being called “accomplishing a deed”.

I never suggested a person “loses their salvation because they didn't forgive another's debt.” The person who does not accept as pure charity the gift of forgiveness is not saved, so his not forgiving a fellow subject, of the king, for a small amount, shows he did not accept the forgiveness.

I am confused here: do you believe there is more needed in salvation than being forgiven and accepting forgiveness?

I still say he is distinguishing between who's a Christian and who isn't (at least, yet). It is similar to every warning written in the NT.
OK, now I see why you have to believe the church consisted of believers and nonbelievers, since we do have warnings going out to the church.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
We agree they have “faith” and can put their trust in a god. Only the Christian God can do anything for them, so they have to direct that faith/trust toward the Christian God.
Yet we do not agree on what faith is the saving kind. You claim that it's natural, since you say everyone has it, but I say that saving faith is spiritual, and is not a natural function. Therefore we disagree on the basic definition of faith.

Who is providing all these opportunities in this world for you to show Love, experience Love, extend Love and be Loved by others? Why do you not cease more of these opportunities?

Just as we realize Ro. 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him… We can see God working in everything to help us. Or we can throw up our hands and say: “Only God knows”, which explains nothing.
I don't see a relevant point in this.

God is only to plan if your correct in election and not with my understanding of scripture
our paths diverge.

God is described as being “Love” (totally unselfish, Loving unconditionally, sacrificially, and the greatest example of Love (Christ)). A Love like that would compel even God to do what He does, but that is also who He is. God would not be doing anything just for His own sake but would do everything for the sake of others which is His own sake also.
The scripture essentially testifies that God loves those who love Him. Rom. 8:28 says God works things for those who love Him.

This salvation decision for others made by anyone else would make the decision maker guilty for the lost, but you are making an unneeded illogical exception.
I disagree.

I am not saying: “…mere human can't love their enemies without the presence of the Holy Spirit guiding them.” Godly type Love comes after accepting God’s charity. Like Jesus taught us in Luke 7 “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Yes God Loves us first in the form of forgiving us, but God is Loving everyone, so it is only those who free willingly accept God’s forgiveness of their huge unbelievable debt who obtain this Godly type Love automatically from God.
I know you're not saying that humans can't love enemies without the Holy Spirit - I said it because you appear to deny it.

Your idea that a person must accept God's forgiveness out of natural autonomy (apart from God's divine intervention) first, then they obtain godly love automatically - here again, your logic shows that you believe in merited grace. The ones obtaining godly love have merited obtaining it by virtue of exercising their autonomous free will to accept God's forgiveness. They receive God's love by the merit of acceptance. Because those who don't accept it don't get it. I'm pretty sure this is what you're saying.

I was carrying a huge burden from hurting others (sin) in my (God given) conscience (like most people feel sometime in their life) and I really needed help. I wanted and needed there to be a Benevolent Creator, because what I had tried in the past was not working and I could not get rid of this problem on my own. Being desperate I would have humbly accepted help from anyone, so I asked God to help me.
I don't see how your experience answers the question about where faith comes from. I still say it comes from God's revelation, in spite of how you judge your experience.

God is “doing” everything except he is not forcing us to accept or not accept what he is doing for our own lives.
Eph. 2:5 of God raising us from spiritual death is a powerful force. It changes the disposition of the heart and makes us willing to accept what we now know is true.

Again, it is not “their deeds” accepting or rejecting a huge gift is not worthy of being called “accomplishing a deed”.
Accepting/receiving is a deed: Rom. 15:7 "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." So if "accept" is a command, then "accept" is a deed to be done. It is a change of mental attitude, and that takes exertion of energy to do it.

I never suggested a person “loses their salvation because they didn't forgive another's debt.” The person who does not accept as pure charity the gift of forgiveness is not saved, so his not forgiving a fellow subject, of the king, for a small amount, shows he did not accept the forgiveness.
I see you claiming that God has a general forgiveness He offers to everyone alike, and that a person doesn't receive that forgiveness unless he chooses to accept it. Only then is he forgiven. I don't see this taught in Mat. 18, so IMO your explanation is just your bias talking.

I am confused here: do you believe there is more needed in salvation than being forgiven and accepting forgiveness?
Yes, I'm fairly certain you are confused. I see confusion in your conversation, since you claim you believe in unmerited grace, yet you say a person doesn't get God's forgiveness unless they first accept it, which is a merited action.

OK, now I see why you have to believe the church consisted of believers and nonbelievers, since we do have warnings going out to the church.
I have to believe what the Bible says.
TD:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammster
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The way I read John 3:3 is that the one born of God sees the kingdom because he is already in it. "Can't see..." means he's not in it. The moment a person believes the gospel, he has already been translated into the kingdom of God, and therefore sees it. However, at that moment he doesn't understand the kingdom, because he has no idea what he's getting himself into. Understanding about being in the kingdom comes later. So I think your conclusions are based on knowledge you have now, and not on what actually happened to you the first time you believed.
Luke 18:17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Are you saying you have to be in the Kingdom to receive the Kingdom because this passages says you have to become a child to receive it and then you can enter it?

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The passage says you have to first be born again of water and Spirit before entering the Kingdom?
Like I said before, your description could apply to Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. Then the only difference with Christians is that they have different information. Do you believe that people of other religions are then saved simply because they put their trust in the one and only God, even though they have been given different information?
God saves people, so how do you know God did not save some Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists? Can God save babies?
The one who says he accepted it apart from God's work is the one boasting.
God provided the ability and the opportunity for all mature adults to accept, but it is still the person’s choice.
Peter wrote that judgment begins in the house of God, so that we will not be judged with the rest of the world. Therefore God is not judging everyone the same, nor at the same time or stage in their lives.
OK? Judgement is not putting those who died, or leave at the second coming, on some jury like trial, the results are in with the person’s death, it is more like a sentencing or rewarding time.
I got the capricious nature of it from your reasoning, not from scripture. And I disagree with your idea of mercy being unjust if not given to everyone equally. I believe mercy is an exception to justice, and that Rom. 9 teaches that. I do not agree with your commentary on Rom. 9 as I explained before.
As parents are, we to be both just and merciful to our children at the same time?

How would your children rightly feel if you were merciful to only some of your children?

I need specifics to go further with the explanation of Ro. 9.
The basis of your conversation indicates otherwise.
Where?
Since there are tares and goats among the sheep, they will be separated at the harvest which is the day of judgment, and of course they will be lost because they are lost.
So the church is made up of the lost and saved?
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yet we do not agree on what faith is the saving kind. You claim that it's natural, since you say everyone has it, but I say that saving faith is spiritual, and is not a natural function. Therefore we disagree on the basic definition of faith.

I am just using the Bible explanation which goes along with the dictionary definition: “something that is believed especially with strong conviction”.





Your idea that a person must accept God's forgiveness out of natural autonomy (apart from God's divine intervention) first, then they obtain godly love automatically - here again, your logic shows that you believe in merited grace. The ones obtaining godly love have merited obtaining it by virtue of exercising their autonomous free will to accept God's forgiveness. They receive God's love by the merit of acceptance. Because those who don't accept it don't get it. I'm pretty sure this is what you're saying.
Willingly accepting pure charity as charity, merits you nothing. You are not deserving of the charity, because you are willing to accept the charity? The added gift to forgiveness of “Love”, is still purely undeserved charity. You do not earn the gift of Love by accepting the gift of Love in the form of forgiveness.

If you merit something it is not pure charity, yet how could you ever deserve to have Godly type Love, which can only come as a gift from God?
I don't see how your experience answers the question about where faith comes from. I still say it comes from God's revelation, in spite of how you judge your experience.
I had in the past trusted lots of things and people, so all I have to “do” is direct that faith toward God.

Yes, I'm fairly certain you are confused. I see confusion in your conversation, since you claim you believe in unmerited grace, yet you say a person doesn't get God's forgiveness unless they first accept it, which is a merited action.
Accepting pure undeserved charity as charity is not merited action? How is accepting charity as charity a worthy of anything activity?
I have to believe what the Bible says.
I very much believe what the Bible says, but have to keep the words in context and consistent with everything else said.
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Luke 18:17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

Are you saying you have to be in the Kingdom to receive the Kingdom because this passages says you have to become a child to receive it and then you can enter it?
It's a warning to those who think they can enter by working for it, or by proud knowledge. Part of regeneration that God does has to do with addressing what is wrong with natural reasoning, thus the command to repent. If one does not have the faith in Christ to repent and do what Christ said they won't enter. But the one who does have that faith do receive the kingdom because they are in it and see it.

Incidentally, you are using the term "receive" as an action, which is something people do.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

The passage says you have to first be born again of water and Spirit before entering the Kingdom?
No, it doesn't say that. You are projecting chronology on the text. The one born again is in the kingdom, as Paul declares in Col. 1:13.

God saves people, so how do you know God did not save some Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists? Can God save babies?
Babies are in the hands of God, it is not for you to judge them. Whoever among other religions come to faith in Christ will be saved. But "he who does not believe (that is, in Christ Jesus) is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." I just know what the Bible says.

God provided the ability and the opportunity for all mature adults to accept, but it is still the person’s choice.
If a person says they chose to accept it without God's help, they are boasting.

OK? Judgement is not putting those who died, or leave at the second coming, on some jury like trial, the results are in with the person’s death, it is more like a sentencing or rewarding time.
The Bible says that God will judge everyone on a certain day, at the "great white throne judgment" written about in Revelation.

As parents are, we to be both just and merciful to our children at the same time?
How would your children rightly feel if you were merciful to only some of your children?
I need specifics to go further with the explanation of Ro. 9.
I already told you why I don't accept your commentary. V. 24 is talking about Christians, which contradicts your idea that it's all about Jews and Gentiles.

I told you where already.

So the church is made up of the lost and saved?
I take it you don't believe Jesus' parables about the wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc, or you can't apply it to how people live today, otherwise you would understand this. Or else, you simply don't know what it says.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I am just using the Bible explanation which goes along with the dictionary definition: “something that is believed especially with strong conviction”.
You're using the culturally accepted definition of the word, which leaves out the Biblical context. The Biblical definition has faith expressed in the spiritual dimension, but the natural definition leaves this out, because according to Paul in 1 Cor. 2 the natural lacks the spiritual dimension. I've been saying this all along, but it seems to me that it just goes into one eye and out the other for you. It's why I say that our paths diverge here.

Willingly accepting pure charity as charity, merits you nothing. You are not deserving of the charity, because you are willing to accept the charity? The added gift to forgiveness of “Love”, is still purely undeserved charity. You do not earn the gift of Love by accepting the gift of Love in the form of forgiveness.

If you merit something it is not pure charity, yet how could you ever deserve to have Godly type Love, which can only come as a gift from God?
According to you, those who accept it by autonomy (without God's help) are the ones who receive it. Therefore, according to your reasoning on justice, that those people justly receive the gift because they accepted it by autonomy - the fact that they are doing that merits their receiving it.

And conversely, those who don't accept it don't receive it - after all, they don't deserve it because they aren't accepting it. Since acceptance is a command in the Bible, it is something people do, and so their deed of acceptance warrants receiving the gift. This is merited grace.

I had in the past trusted lots of things and people, so all I have to “do” is direct that faith toward God.
Despite your insistence that you aren't doing anything, you are doing something when you "direct your faith toward God." It requires the expenditure of mental energy, thought, reasoning, time, focus, discipline, etc. Many would even say that directing faith toward God is easier said than done, especially during times of tribulation.

Accepting pure undeserved charity as charity is not merited action? How is accepting charity as charity a worthy of anything activity?
Receiving is an action just as much as giving. We are commanded to receive from God, accept one another, and other such things. Commands imply that we have to do something in order to obey it. So accepting grace from God is an action, which is a deed to do.

So, if you must do that deed - accept charity - before you can get it, then getting it is merited by your action of acceptance. Can't you see this?

I very much believe what the Bible says, but have to keep the words in context and consistent with everything else said.
I think you believe more in your interpretation of what the Bible says than what it actually says. At least this is how I read your responses.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It's a warning to those who think they can enter by working for it, or by proud knowledge. Part of regeneration that God does has to do with addressing what is wrong with natural reasoning, thus the command to repent. If one does not have the faith in Christ to repent and do what Christ said they won't enter. But the one who does have that faith do receive the kingdom because they are in it and see it.
This is not talking about “working” for anything, but accepting the invitation as a child.

You previously said: “…the one born of God sees the kingdom because he is already in it”.

Now you are saying: “If one does not have the faith in Christ to repent and do what Christ said they won't enter.”

“repenting” is not the same as “doing what Christ said”. The rebellious disobedient sinner has enough “faith” to trust God’s/Christ’s Love to accept this “Love” if offered as pure charity, but it is up to him or her.
Incidentally, you are using the term "receive" as an action, which is something people do.
Receiving pure undeserved charity does not mean you are deserving of it, do you see the difference?
No, it doesn't say that. You are projecting chronology on the text. The one born again is in the kingdom, as Paul declares in Col. 1:13.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

If “born of water and the Spirit” can only come after entering the Kingdom this makes no sense and there would be no warning for something impossible to do?

The direction given is “unless one is” that means it has to be prior to what is being addressed “entering the kingdom”. There is no “projecting chronology”.

Col. 1: 13 “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,” this verse does not mean they did not accept the rescue or no one could reject being rescued?

If a person says they chose to accept it without God's help, they are boasting.
Can a sincere truly needy beggar: boast, about accepting undeserved charity?
The Bible says that God will judge everyone on a certain day, at the "great white throne judgment" written about in Revelation.
Sentencing is also called a judgement.
I already told you why I don't accept your commentary. V. 24 is talking about Christians, which contradicts your idea that it's all about Jews and Gentiles.
Ro. 9:24 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Paul is talking about two (separate) groups of Christians in Rome most likely not meeting together Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. That is the division problem and it is not Christians and non-Christians being discussed.


I take it you don't believe Jesus' parables about the wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc, or you can't apply it to how people live today, otherwise you would understand this. Or else, you simply don't know what it says.
A goat or tare are not in the “church” Christ died for, but did go to the meetings.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You're using the culturally accepted definition of the word, which leaves out the Biblical context. The Biblical definition has faith expressed in the spiritual dimension, but the natural definition leaves this out, because according to Paul in 1 Cor. 2 the natural lacks the spiritual dimension. I've been saying this all along, but it seems to me that it just goes into one eye and out the other for you. It's why I say that our paths diverge here.
My definition works each and every time the word “faith” is used in the English scripture. You are the one having to come up with two totally separate meanings, while the Greek word can be translated either “faith” or “faithfulness”.
According to you, those who accept it by autonomy (without God's help) are the ones who receive it. Therefore, according to your reasoning on justice, that those people justly receive the gift because they accepted it by autonomy - the fact that they are doing that merits their receiving it.
If a truly hurting needy beggar begs for undeserving charity which he knows he can never repay and accepts a charitable gift of help, how is that worthy of anything (meritorious)?
And conversely, those who don't accept it don't receive it - after all, they don't deserve it because they aren't accepting it. Since acceptance is a command in the Bible, it is something people do, and so their deed of acceptance warrants receiving the gift. This is merited grace.
Accepting or rejecting the charity has nothing to do with a person being “deserving” charity.

What scripture are you referring to which says: “you are commanded to accept charity?” Scripture does say a lot about all the good which comes from accepting God’s charity, but the Master did not command his guess to come to the banquet, so they could always refuse and were not “obeying” a command by accepting His invitation.
Despite your insistence that you aren't doing anything, you are doing something when you "direct your faith toward God." It requires the expenditure of mental energy, thought, reasoning, time, focus, discipline, etc. Many would even say that directing faith toward God is easier said than done, especially during times of tribulation.
You are using a modern-day definition of “work” as described in modern physics, but that is not what the first century audience the Bible was addressed to or any who lived in the Old Testament times would define the word. A person who “worked” would be deserving of pay and earned something. It is contrasted with accepting charity. A person given a “gift” did not work to get the gift or it would be payment and not a gift. If you believe in God have you done work? Believing can be considered spiritual “work”, but is that really work in the physical realm?

The priest at the temple kept the Sabbath Rest, but by your definition they worked their tails off on the sabbath, but by my definition they worshipped extremely hard on the Sabbath and since “worship” is never to be considered “work” the priests did no work on the sabbath. To say the priests were “working” on the sabbath means God was paying people to worship Him like the priests of the pagan gods were paid. So is that what you are saying?
Receiving is an action just as much as giving. We are commanded to receive from God, accept one another, and other such things. Commands imply that we have to do something in order to obey it. So accepting grace from God is an action, which is a deed to do.
So, let’s say: you are implanted with faith, are you working when allowing this faith to do stuff? Can you personally keep this faith from doing good stuff? Who is doing the bad stuff you do and can you stop doing bad stuff and do good stuff?

Do you “work” now or did you take the priests place of the Old Law?
So, if you must do that deed - accept charity - before you can get it, then getting it is merited by your action of acceptance. Can't you see this?
No
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
This is not talking about “working” for anything, but accepting the invitation as a child.

You previously said: “…the one born of God sees the kingdom because he is already in it”.

Now you are saying: “If one does not have the faith in Christ to repent and do what Christ said they won't enter.”

“repenting” is not the same as “doing what Christ said”. The rebellious disobedient sinner has enough “faith” to trust God’s/Christ’s Love to accept this “Love” if offered as pure charity, but it is up to him or her.
It appears to me that you refuse to even try to understand what I'm saying, but you seem to interpret what I write in the worst possible way, as is convenient to your bias, and I think this is how you interpret scripture as well.

But to explain, it all starts with faith in Christ that is a gift of God. If a person has this faith, they are in the kingdom, and if not, then they aren't. Those who don't have this faith won't enter the kingdom because they will refuse to repent. Clear as mud?

The problem with your idea of accepting an offer of pure charity, this is required of such a person:
1. They already believe in God and His integrity
2. They already have some hope that God loves them
3. They must have already heard the gospel and believed

Those who are without God in the world will never "humbly accept God's charity" because they don't see it, they don't believe it, and they don't want it. To "humbly accept" is to repent of arrogance which the natural ego can't do, since that requires a spiritual element where the Holy Spirit brings them to conviction, and such conviction leads to faith in God, which is required for humbling oneself before Him. Your reasoning is not Biblical in the least.

Receiving pure undeserved charity does not mean you are deserving of it, do you see the difference?
You have to do something to receive it, as I explained to you, therefore it's merited according to your requirements.

“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

If “born of water and the Spirit” can only come after entering the Kingdom this makes no sense and there would be no warning for something impossible to do?

The direction given is “unless one is” that means it has to be prior to what is being addressed “entering the kingdom”. There is no “projecting chronology”.

Col. 1: 13 “For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves,” this verse does not mean they did not accept the rescue or no one could reject being rescued?
You're still missing the point. When God changes the heart, it causes the person to accept the rescue. Being born of the Spirit is the action taking a person into the kingdom. It happens simultaneously, not sequentially as you think.

Can a sincere truly needy beggar: boast, about accepting undeserved charity?
The statement "I received it by my own free will" is the boast, whether one thinks it is or not.

Sentencing is also called a judgement.
This was in reference to God not judging everyone the same, as you seem to think. Those receiving mercy from God aren't judged the same as everyone else, which was the point of the statement from Peter.

Ro. 9:24 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Paul is talking about two (separate) groups of Christians in Rome most likely not meeting together Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. That is the division problem and it is not Christians and non-Christians being discussed.
Yes, it is talking about Christians vs. non-Christians. He is using the Jew/Gentile issue as an example concerning how God does not treat everyone the same, and v. 24 is Paul's conclusion about God calling Christians out of the world of "common vessels."


A goat or tare are not in the “church” Christ died for, but did go to the meetings.
People going to the meetings are called "the church." The Roman church was not entirely wrong in their ecclesiology. There is a visible church and an invisible church, and the two are not the same. I suggest you get better discernment about how the NT uses the term.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
My definition works each and every time the word “faith” is used in the English scripture. You are the one having to come up with two totally separate meanings, while the Greek word can be translated either “faith” or “faithfulness”.
I believe the reformation clarified the doctrine of faith in response to the Roman church's confusion about it. Your definition follows the Roman church's usage, so we can't possibly agree on this point.

Just as in any language, definitions of words are established and adjusted by the context of how those words are used. Your reasoning doesn't follow correct hermeneutics. According to your reasoning, demons have the same faith as Christians, it's just a matter of which way it's directed. This can't be further from the truth.

If a truly hurting needy beggar begs for undeserving charity which he knows he can never repay and accepts a charitable gift of help, how is that worthy of anything (meritorious)?
That act isn't meritorious, but the change of attitude from enemy to friend is, if indeed the doctrine of Total Depravity is true. The natural ego of man will never humble himself unless God does something to soften his heart. But you don't believe this, according to your responses. You think man naturally has that capability to crucify his ego without any help from God.

Accepting or rejecting the charity has nothing to do with a person being “deserving” charity.

What scripture are you referring to which says: “you are commanded to accept charity?” Scripture does say a lot about all the good which comes from accepting God’s charity, but the Master did not command his guess to come to the banquet, so they could always refuse and were not “obeying” a command by accepting His invitation.
That parable was given in reference to entering the kingdom of God (Lk. 14). Therefore, an invitation from God to enter His kingdom is a command, if indeed He is sovereign. The problem with your reasoning is that you think all those invited have the ability to change their attitude toward God without God's help, since you claim it's "their decision."

But those who don't enter are blind and under Satan's control. Those who do enter have been born of God, which is the Biblical answer. I think your issue is with the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is a spiritual issue. You have yet to acknowledge the spiritual element in all this.

You are using a modern-day definition of “work” as described in modern physics, but that is not what the first century audience the Bible was addressed to or any who lived in the Old Testament times would define the word. A person who “worked” would be deserving of pay and earned something. It is contrasted with accepting charity. A person given a “gift” did not work to get the gift or it would be payment and not a gift. If you believe in God have you done work? Believing can be considered spiritual “work”, but is that really work in the physical realm?
And here is where your reasoning goes awry. You say that believing can be considered spiritual work, yet you claim that salvation is unmerited. Since salvation is spiritual by nature, doing spiritual work (of believing) is the work that merits salvation. Can't you see this is the ramification of what you're saying?

The only way salvation can be unmerited is if believing itself is the gift of God. And as I explained before, faith rises up from the spirit, being a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit about the truth of the gospel. All we can do is realize that we believe the truth of the gospel and act on it. Resistance works misery, repentance works peace. Faith is involuntary, not voluntary. A person doesn't go from unbelief to belief by choosing to believe. That not only makes no sense, it's unbiblical.

The priest at the temple kept the Sabbath Rest, but by your definition they worked their tails off on the sabbath, but by my definition they worshipped extremely hard on the Sabbath and since “worship” is never to be considered “work” the priests did no work on the sabbath. To say the priests were “working” on the sabbath means God was paying people to worship Him like the priests of the pagan gods were paid. So is that what you are saying?
Except you are in disagreement with Jesus, since He said that the priests break the Sabbath by working, and are innocent. (Mat. 12:5)

So, let’s say: you are implanted with faith, are you working when allowing this faith to do stuff? Can you personally keep this faith from doing good stuff? Who is doing the bad stuff you do and can you stop doing bad stuff and do good stuff?

Do you “work” now or did you take the priests place of the Old Law?
What's your point? It appears you're missing mine. I quoted you from the Bible about how accepting and receiving is action just like giving is. Do you deny that giving is working in the Biblical sense? I think you're trying to work around the problem.

The fact is, if we have to do anything at all before God will give grace, then that grace is merited, not unmerited. If we have to come up with faith we don't have, then it means doing work - searching for truth, adjusting attitude, crucifying pride, etc. ad infinitum.

I know you don't see it.
TD:)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It appears to me that you refuse to even try to understand what I'm saying, but you seem to interpret what I write in the worst possible way, as is convenient to your bias, and I think this is how you interpret scripture as well.

But to explain, it all starts with faith in Christ that is a gift of God. If a person has this faith, they are in the kingdom, and if not, then they aren't. Those who don't have this faith won't enter the kingdom because they will refuse to repent. Clear as mud?
Again, we seem to agree all mature adults do seem to have a God given “faith” ability which can be seen by their showing faith in something or someone.

The question is: “Can the mature adult use this “general” God given faith to direct it toward God and thus become a saving faith or must they have wait on God to who gives only a few this unique saving faith.

If the person must “wait” to see if God gifts them with this unique “saving faith”, then it is useless to tell, teach, encourage, plead, or pray for the nonbeliever to believe, since that is dependent on God’s (arbitrary) selection and it would be wrong to blame them for not having this “saving faith”.
The problem with your idea of accepting an offer of pure charity, this is required of such a person:
1. They already believe in God and His integrity
They can know God as their enemy
2. They already have some hope that God loves them
They do not have to have “desired expectation” (Biblical hope), but do need to feel God’s Love could be strong enough to help them, but they do not know Godly type Love yet.
3. They must have already heard the gospel and believed
Hearing and trusting are needed, but they have a “general” type of faith that already could be directed toward God, but knowledge of the good news is still needed, but anyone and everyone can listen to the good news, yet not heard it if they refuse.
You have to do something to receive it, as I explained to you, therefore it's merited according to your requirements.
No, it is not earned (merited/deserved). If someone just gives you a check for a billion dollars, you did nothing to deserve/merit/earn the Billion dollars, but you did have to cash the check and if you refuse the check you do not get the Billion Dollars.

The statement "I received it by my own free will" is the boast, whether one thinks it is or not.
So a beggar is goes around “boasting” about himself, if someone he knew dropped a thousand dollars in his basket?
This was in reference to God not judging everyone the same, as you seem to think. Those receiving mercy from God aren't judged the same as everyone else, which was the point of the statement from Peter.
If people before the judge are not judged the same that is the Judge’s fault?
Yes, it is talking about Christians vs. non-Christians. He is using the Jew/Gentile issue as an example concerning how God does not treat everyone the same, and v. 24 is Paul's conclusion about God calling Christians out of the world of "common vessels."
The “vessels” (born) left the potter’s shop either made for a special purpose (like the Jews were born into or for a common purpose (like the gentile were born into). Both had the Potter’s stamp on them and were well made for their purpose. We can easily agree today, especially after reading Romans, there is really no significant difference between being born Jewish or Gentile when it comes to salvation.

After either vessel leaves the shop things can happen where either vessel can be broken and leak, thus worthless and good on for junk and the Potter would not want his mark on such a vessel.

The big issue for those with your understanding of election is: The selection method you describe has God being arbitrary, unconcerned for most who are lost, unfair and really unjust. Those lost should not be blamed for being lost since God did not provide them with the resources for salvation.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,158
1,805
✟794,647.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I believe the reformation clarified the doctrine of faith in response to the Roman church's confusion about it. Your definition follows the Roman church's usage, so we can't possibly agree on this point.

Just as in any language, definitions of words are established and adjusted by the context of how those words are used. Your reasoning doesn't follow correct hermeneutics. According to your reasoning, demons have the same faith as Christians, it's just a matter of which way it's directed. This can't be further from the truth.
You have not shown me why, since just showing faith address different situations does not literarily require different definitions?
That act isn't meritorious, but the change of attitude from enemy to friend is, if indeed the doctrine of Total Depravity is true. The natural ego of man will never humble himself unless God does something to soften his heart. But you don't believe this, according to your responses. You think man naturally has that capability to crucify his ego without any help from God.
OK! We have some agreement: “That act isn't meritorious, but the change of attitude from enemy to friend is. The change in “attitude” comes with the showering of gifts by God on the sinner.


That parable was given in reference to entering the kingdom of God (Lk. 14). Therefore, an invitation from God to enter His kingdom is a command, if indeed He is sovereign. The problem with your reasoning is that you think all those invited have the ability to change their attitude toward God without God's help, since you claim it's "their decision."
It is not "work" to have a change in attitude. What gave some on the street the "attitude" to accept?
But those who don't enter are blind and under Satan's control. Those who do enter have been born of God, which is the Biblical answer. I think your issue is with the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is a spiritual issue. You have yet to acknowledge the spiritual element in all this.
With such a huge amount of ways to sin, as a result of knowledge, after leaving the Garden, yes, all mature adults will sin. This “knowledge” is from God (a spiritual element).
And here is where your reasoning goes awry. You say that believing can be considered spiritual work, yet you claim that salvation is unmerited. Since salvation is spiritual by nature, doing spiritual work (of believing) is the work that merits salvation. Can't you see this is the ramification of what you're saying?

The only way salvation can be unmerited is if believing itself is the gift of God. And as I explained before, faith rises up from the spirit, being a personal revelation from the Holy Spirit about the truth of the gospel. All we can do is realize that we believe the truth of the gospel and act on it. Resistance works misery, repentance works peace. Faith is involuntary, not voluntary. A person doesn't go from unbelief to belief by choosing to believe. That not only makes no sense, it's unbiblical.


Except you are in disagreement with Jesus, since He said that the priests break the Sabbath by working, and are innocent. (Mat. 12:5)
Believing (faith) is a gift of God, which all mature adults have been given, but I am not changing the word to mean only saving faith since it is faith.

The preachers, prophets, evangelists and apostles ask the nonbeliever to believe all the time.

Why were the priest innocent, could it be the fact the people understood "work" one way when Jesus is showing them "work" is not defined by God the same way they are defining it?
The apostles were with Christ (worshipping/ learning/ being mentored) when they ground some grain in there hands on the Sabbath, so why was that not "work" by Christ's definition or was it and Christ should have stopped them?
 
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Again, we seem to agree all mature adults do seem to have a God given “faith” ability which can be seen by their showing faith in something or someone.

The question is: “Can the mature adult use this “general” God given faith to direct it toward God and thus become a saving faith or must they have wait on God to who gives only a few this unique saving faith.

If the person must “wait” to see if God gifts them with this unique “saving faith”, then it is useless to tell, teach, encourage, plead, or pray for the nonbeliever to believe, since that is dependent on God’s (arbitrary) selection and it would be wrong to blame them for not having this “saving faith”.
No, we do not agree on faith. I'm talking about spiritual faith, you're not.

Why do you think that praying for an unbeliever would not be in God's divine plan? God knows those who are His, you don't. If you are concerned for the salvation of a loved one, then why not pray for them, and see if God is using you to carry out His election plan for that person?

But even Jesus did not pray for those God didn't choose, since He said (John 17:9) "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours." Meaning, He is praying for His disciples and those who will believe because of their preaching. But not for the rest of mankind.

They can know God as their enemy
You are suggesting that the Pharisees and Jewish leaders knew God. Your idea is not Biblical. No enemy of God can possibly know Him.

They do not have to have “desired expectation” (Biblical hope), but do need to feel God’s Love could be strong enough to help them, but they do not know Godly type Love yet.
You're saying they "do need to feel..." so you're claiming that they actually understand their need, which is extremely doubtful, but also feeling has to do with the flesh, so you're talking about natural faith, which is exercised in all religions. Muslims feel that God might help them, and Hindus do also. Biblical faith is spiritual in nature, and is a revelation from the Holy Spirit. And since Paul makes a distinction in 1 Cor. 2, your idea doesn't come to a Biblical conclusion.

Hearing and trusting are needed, but they have a “general” type of faith that already could be directed toward God, but knowledge of the good news is still needed, but anyone and everyone can listen to the good news, yet not heard it if they refuse.
No, they cannot direct faith toward God if God has not revealed Himself to them in the manner that is required for that direction of faith. This is how it happened with Abraham. Therefore, faith in God requires God to act in the spirit realm to illuminate the mind and change the attitude of the heart, to enable their repentance.

No, it is not earned (merited/deserved). If someone just gives you a check for a billion dollars, you did nothing to deserve/merit/earn the Billion dollars, but you did have to cash the check and if you refuse the check you do not get the Billion Dollars.
If I believe the man is a scam artist, I would not even take the check, as I would believe it worthless.

So a beggar is goes around “boasting” about himself, if someone he knew dropped a thousand dollars in his basket?
No, because the beggar doesn't declare that he got the money by his own free will. He would give the credit to the one who put it there by saying they put it there.

If people before the judge are not judged the same that is the Judge’s fault?
No, this idea of justice is judging the judge. The judge is the highest authority, and has the right to judge according to how he sees fit. God doesn't judge on the basis of political correctness or what the culture calls fairness. He exacts justice on some and has mercy on others.

The “vessels” (born) left the potter’s shop either made for a special purpose (like the Jews were born into or for a common purpose (like the gentile were born into). Both had the Potter’s stamp on them and were well made for their purpose. We can easily agree today, especially after reading Romans, there is really no significant difference between being born Jewish or Gentile when it comes to salvation.

After either vessel leaves the shop things can happen where either vessel can be broken and leak, thus worthless and good on for junk and the Potter would not want his mark on such a vessel.

The big issue for those with your understanding of election is: The selection method you describe has God being arbitrary, unconcerned for most who are lost, unfair and really unjust. Those lost should not be blamed for being lost since God did not provide them with the resources for salvation.
I continue to quote from scripture: "God (the potter) has the right over the clay, to make from the same lump (mankind) one vessel for honorable use, and one for common use." Therefore you imply a judgment of God by suggesting He would be wrong to not provide the resource for the salvation of some. But like I said before, God has the right to judge anyone for any reason, since He is the creator. His judgments are exact, since He is omniscient and sovereign.

So God is not obligated to save anyone at all. He would be perfectly just and righteous to condemn all of mankind for the sins they committed, and not provide any resource for their salvation. He does not provide any resource for the salvation of fallen angels, and no one questions His justice or authority on that matter. The fact is, all mankind is blamable for the sins they committed, even without God providing any means for their salvation. It is the same with fallen angels, that God is just to condemn them all to the lake of fire, without providing any means for their salvation.

The fact that God has mercy on some is what goes beyond what anyone would call justice. If you admit that you deserve lake of fire judgment because of the sins you committed against God, then wouldn't you be grateful to God that He has done that? Then don't you think it arrogant to say that God isn't just if He doesn't provide the same mercy and means to salvation to everyone alike? That would be judging God.

But you are using a bad connotation for the term "arbitrary," as you are using it in a derogatory manner. It would be accusing God of being capricious if that were so, but it is not so. God has His own reasons for choosing whoever He wants to have mercy on. We should be grateful that we are among those, instead of being condemned with the rest of the world as we deserve.
TD:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tdidymas

Newbie
Aug 28, 2014
2,294
974
Houston, TX
✟153,913.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You have not shown me why, since just showing faith address different situations does not literarily require different definitions?
Paul wrote: "We maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from the law."
James wrote: "So you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the term "faith" is completely different in these contexts, if we believe that scripture adheres to the law of non-contradiction.

OK! We have some agreement: “That act isn't meritorious, but the change of attitude from enemy to friend is. The change in “attitude” comes with the showering of gifts by God on the sinner.
This is exactly what I have been saying for weeks. The gifts God showers (and has showered) are: mercy, regeneration, sanctification, faith, change of heart, illumination, wisdom, and everything else spiritual that is needed for us to be in His kingdom. But according to your responses, you don't agree with it.

It is not "work" to have a change in attitude. What gave some on the street the "attitude" to accept?
What gave them that attitude was to recognize the value of the invitation (the gift of wisdom from God), and the hope they would be received (the gift of faith). For someone without any hope in Christ or belief in the gospel, to change their hostile attitude toward God would be such a heavy burden, they couldn't bear it. God has to change a person's attitude from hostile to friendly before they will accept the invitation. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe the doctrine of Total Depravity, which is the same as the doctrine of Original Sin that Augustine taught. Charles Finney, who is called the father of modern revivalism, didn't believe it. But most Arminians do claim to believe this doctrine.

With such a huge amount of ways to sin, as a result of knowledge, after leaving the Garden, yes, all mature adults will sin. This “knowledge” is from God (a spiritual element).
No, I disagree that the knowledge they got was from God, as if it was a good thing to them. What they got was the knowledge of evil, in which their hearts were infiltrated with the big lie from the serpent. That's not a good thing, it was a bad thing. It incurred condemnation, and infused the human race with the sinful nature. So do you believe the doctrine of Total Depravity or not? Is the whole world under Satan's control or not?

Believing (faith) is a gift of God, which all mature adults have been given, but I am not changing the word to mean only saving faith since it is faith.
It appears to me that you are changing your tune now. I got the strong impression that you were fighting me tooth and nail against my statement that faith is the gift of God. However, even here our paths diverge, since Biblical faith cannot possibly be given to everyone. Again, let's look at scripture: "he who does not believe..." - this means that someone does not have the gift of faith - "does not believe."

The preachers, prophets, evangelists and apostles ask the nonbeliever to believe all the time.
Actually, it is commanded, suggested, advised, and everyhow else. This doesn't mean that anyone can believe by choice apart from God's divine imposition in their hearts.

Why were the priest innocent, could it be the fact the people understood "work" one way when Jesus is showing them "work" is not defined by God the same way they are defining it?
That's the whole problem with judging God. If anyone has a strong opinion about what they think is just, fair, or righteous, they end up judging God by claiming God should not do what the Bible clearly says He does. It was the same with the Pharisees as it is with many people today.

The apostles were with Christ (worshipping/ learning/ being mentored) when they ground some grain in there hands on the Sabbath, so why was that not "work" by Christ's definition or was it and Christ should have stopped them?
Jesus didn't say it wasn't work, and He is not responding on the level of the Pharisees' legalism. Instead, He is responding on the level of what reasonably fulfills the law, and this is why the Pharisees could not answer Him on the matter.
TD:)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,277
5,237
45
Oregon
✟952,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Paul wrote: "We maintain that a man is justified by faith, apart from the law."
James wrote: "So you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the term "faith" is completely different in these contexts, if we believe that scripture adheres to the law of non-contradiction.
I would say that a man's work or good works (and not works of the law) (but good deeds or the good that he does, etc) Anyway, I would say that a man's good work or good works are what proves that he "has been justified and or saved by faith", etc, (past tense, etc) or that his faith was, and/or is, or perhaps always was, a truly true or truly genuine, or was a "saving faith", etc, but it is still all about the faith, etc, the works do not save, etc, but are only evidence of such a one having been or being or that he or she was saved, etc, (past tense, etc) but still all by faith, etc, which was a gift from God and not ever or never because of them or their own doing, etc, but only God and God's and God's alone, etc, His choosing and/or doing and not theirs, etc, so that no one can take or have any kind of credit or boast, etc...

But just because a man's good work or good works are evidence of such a man's saving faith being true and/or genuine, or truly being a true saving faith or not, still no man should judge by or based on that either, as all too often, a man's true work or works, being truly good or bad, etc, are not truly seen hardly ever at all in just the externals, etc, and that can actually be very, very deceptive and deceiving, etc...

So we should not ever try to determine a man's goodness or badness solely based on that, etc, and since we cannot see and cannot truly judge the insides of a man hardly ever, then we should not hardly ever judge at all, if we can avoid it, etc...

And there are many, many other reasons for not judging also, and/or especially not judging a man's goodness and/or badness just solely based on the outside or outer or outward appearances, etc...

The true goodness or badness of a man can only truly be known or judged to and by God and God only and alone I think, etc...

And we need to give God His rightful place, etc, and not be trying to do what only He can know and/or is alone qualified to do, ourselves, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0