Does God Need Your Permission in Order to Save You?

[Neogaia777]

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!

James is right if he meant that a truly saving faith, if it is really a truly saving and genuine faith, etc, anyway, he is right if he meant it would always be followed up by good works, etc, or good doings or deeds, or acts or actions, etc, (I don't believe he ever meant works of the law, etc) but he is not right, and is wrong, etc, if he meant that those works ever truly saved them, etc...

But again, just because of that, we still should not judge each other based on that, etc, for many, many very good reasons, etc, only some of which I just went into and/or already quoted and/or explained in the post quoted above, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

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!

James is right if he meant that a truly saving faith, if it is really a truly saving and genuine faith, etc, anyway, he is right if he meant it would always be followed up by good works, etc, or good doings or deeds, or acts or actions, etc, (I don't believe he ever meant works of the law, etc) but he is not right, and is wrong, etc, if he meant that those works ever truly saved them, etc...

But again, just because of that, we still should not judge each other based on that, etc, for many, many very good reasons, etc, only some of which I just went into and/or already quoted and/or explained in the post quoted above, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

And since it is God who gave or predestined you to have the the true saving faith, and God who allowed or foreordained or predestined you to walk in the good works or actions or deeds that would follow, etc, none of it is really ever at all truly because of you, or your choosing and/or doing, etc, so that He (God) gets all the glory and credit and honor or whatever, etc, and we get none of it at all, etc...

If you think you do get the credit in any way at all, then I would question whether your supposed (at that point) "true saving faith", etc, was ever really truly true, or was ever truly true genuine saving faith at all, to begin with, etc...? Filthy rags, etc, and get's you nothing at all with God, etc...

Anyway, I would seriously question "that" if you are to ever get any kind of credit for it at all ever, etc...

God Bless!

 

[tdidymas]

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!

Yes, the point is not to justify judging people, but rather to examine ourselves. James' statement was to people whose faith was not genuine or spiritual, and so I agree that works of love in obedience to Christ is proof of genuine faith. We do naturally judge people by what they do, and as Christians I think we err on the positive side, generally. IOW we assume people are Christians when they say they are, and treat them with love and respect as long as they exhibit the same. But when people begin doing evil things, that's when it gets tough. But if we are examining ourselves the way both James and Paul teach, we prove our faith not only to others, but to ourselves as well.
TD

 

[bling]

No, we do not agree on faith. I'm talking about spiritual faith, you're not.

We agree on the existence of a “general faith”, I say this “general faith can be directed toward God and you seem to be saying it cannot, but only a different type of “faith” (Spiritual faith) can be directed toward God.

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?

So, you feel God selection is somewhat directed by whom you want to be saved? How is your praying or not praying for someone involved who God elected?

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.

The previous verse tells us who “those” are, which is not all who will believe: 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. And the following verses: And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you.

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 rejected God/Christ.

If I believe the man is a scam artist, I would not even take the check, as I would believe it worthless.

Ok, if you believed he was a “scam artist” you would not have the little’s of faith to just check out the remote possibility it could be real? I agree some would reject the money, but what would cause them to think he was a “scam artist”, since this scammer has been totally truthful and would gain absolutely nothing from the scam?

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.

God has explained what is just throughout scripture and with Christ, so if He wants to judge unjustly He has lied.

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.

The two types of vessels leaving the shop are not “saved and lost” individuals, but Jew and Gentile individuals (keeping with the context), the Jews were born (leave the shop) into a special purpose and the Gentiles were born (leave the shop) into a more common purpose. Both groups have problems with becoming Christian (the really only significant matter), so both are equal (being fairly treated.

I have no problem with God making some gentiles and some Jews.

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.

God in scripture told us some would go to heaven and some would not, so to not save some would be a lie.

There is a huge difference between “fallen angels” and sinful man! All angels were already in heaven and had fully experienced God’s Love, yet it was still up to them to accept His Love or reject His Love, and that choice was provided by satan. Once an angel rejected God’s Love to pursue a fleshly/carnal/selfish type Love, they fell and could not return, but that is not God’s fault in anyway. There are just somethings God cannot do, one being forcing against a being’s free will choice to accept His Love and Love like He does (out of a free will choice). There was nothing more about Godly type Love to be taught angels in heaven, so rejecting God’s Love was final. God only Loves them with Godly type Love which the fallen angels do not want, yet know all there is to know about His Love, so where can they go? Sinful man on the other hand has the added experience of living in a place where he does sin, is tempted by satan, is burdened by sin, can experience forgiveness, know the threat of hell and know God’s Love through experiencing it through Christ’s crucifixion. Man does not start out in heaven already showed with gifts.

Angels go into the lake of fire by their own autonomous free will choice. Do you feel God made a mistake by giving them just a little autonomous free will, because if He removes their free will He also removes their ability to accept and extend Godly type Love.

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.

I am not “judging” God with my understanding of salvation, since it is all up to man’s autonomous free will choice. It is only when you say: “the choice of who goes to heaven or hell is totally up to God and from all appearances it is an arbitrary choice.” Then the blame for the lost is shifted from man to God, which cannot be true, knowing “God is Love”.

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.

You are left with “God has His own reasons…”, but what you describe as the selection method is an arbitrary selection. Jesus gives a reason to those lost at judgement and it is not “sorry God did not chose you”, but something the lost decided not to do: Matt. 25: 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

The Lost were given a logical reason for being Lost.

 

[bling]

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.

“faith” in a pagan type god will not result in being showered with wonderful gifts and thus produce good works, but directing that same “faith” toward God who showers you with gifts will result in your doing good stuff out of gratitude. This is the faith both Paul and James are talking about but Paul is only referring to a “faith” in God.

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.

No, according to my response all your list of good things come after the person agrees to humbly accept all these undeserving gifts as pure charity. This does not require regeneration, change of heart, wisdom, or anything spiritual, just a selfish desire to willingly accept pure undeserving charity as charity from someone they hate.

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."

No, having the gift of faith, means you can believe in people and things which all mature adults have. Not believing in a specific person or thing does not mean you cannot believe in them but you chose not to believe in them.

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.

What I am saying they can but chose not to believe, while your saying they are asked commanded and so on, but can’t believe.

 

[tdidymas]

We agree on the existence of a “general faith”, I say this “general faith can be directed toward God and you seem to be saying it cannot, but only a different type of “faith” (Spiritual faith) can be directed toward God.

Direction of "faith" is not the issue. The real issue is who a person believes. "This is eternal life, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent." What I am saying is that if a person doesn't have the gift of Biblical faith from God, by virtue of God's personal revelation to that person, then that person cannot direct any faith toward the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent, since they don't know Him. At best that person will "direct" their faith toward who they think God is according to their assessment. This is what people in all the religions of the world do.

So, you feel God selection is somewhat directed by whom you want to be saved? How is your praying or not praying for someone involved who God elected?

It has nothing to do with how I feel. I just know what the Bible says. Do you believe God works through you or not? Do you believe Rom. 8:26 or not?

The previous verse tells us who “those” are, which is not all who will believe: 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. And the following verses: And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you.

And you don't believe that you are a disciple of Jesus? You don't think this applies to you?

They rejected God/Christ.

No one who rejects Christ knows God, according to scripture.

Ok, if you believed he was a “scam artist” you would not have the little’s of faith to just check out the remote possibility it could be real? I agree some would reject the money, but what would cause them to think he was a “scam artist”, since this scammer has been totally truthful and would gain absolutely nothing from the scam?

"To the Jews, a stumbling block, and to Greeks, foolishness." Yes, they think the gospel is a scam, and there is no way they will believe unless God reveals the truth to those individuals.

God has explained what is just throughout scripture and with Christ, so if He wants to judge unjustly He has lied.

"Unjustly" is your assessment, based on how justice is defined in your culture. You think of niceness, fairness, equal treatment, etc. as just, and anything you don't see conforms to that, you reject as being unjust. But what about "the last shall be first, and the first last"? What about "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my money, or are you envious that I am generous to others"? What about the prodigal's father having a party for the returning son but never for his brother? I think your commitment to unequal treatment being unjust is not Biblical. Jesus healed many, but paid no attention to most of the people in the crowds as He passed by them. The very nature of the mercy taught in Rom. 9 shows that God does not treat everyone the same.

The two types of vessels leaving the shop are not “saved and lost” individuals, but Jew and Gentile individuals (keeping with the context), the Jews were born (leave the shop) into a special purpose and the Gentiles were born (leave the shop) into a more common purpose. Both groups have problems with becoming Christian (the really only significant matter), so both are equal (being fairly treated.[/quote]
Regardless of how you interpret that section, the whole message of Rom. 8 through 11 is about God's sovereignty. God chooses individuals to favor, just as He chooses nations. God chose one son of Abraham's and not the other. He chose one son of Isaac's and not the other. The point of ch. 9 is that God is sovereign in His choice, and it doesn't depend on what those people were going to do. What the chosen do, they do because they are chosen, not the other way.

I have no problem with God making some gentiles and some Jews.

I don't know what you mean by "making some." What's your point?

God in scripture told us some would go to heaven and some would not, so to not save some would be a lie.

This doesn't make sense. It's contradictory.

There is a huge difference between “fallen angels” and sinful man! All angels were already in heaven and had fully experienced God’s Love, yet it was still up to them to accept His Love or reject His Love, and that choice was provided by satan. Once an angel rejected God’s Love to pursue a fleshly/carnal/selfish type Love, they fell and could not return, but that is not God’s fault in anyway. There are just somethings God cannot do, one being forcing against a being’s free will choice to accept His Love and Love like He does (out of a free will choice). There was nothing more about Godly type Love to be taught angels in heaven, so rejecting God’s Love was final. God only Loves them with Godly type Love which the fallen angels do not want, yet know all there is to know about His Love, so where can they go? Sinful man on the other hand has the added experience of living in a place where he does sin, is tempted by satan, is burdened by sin, can experience forgiveness, know the threat of hell and know God’s Love through experiencing it through Christ’s crucifixion. Man does not start out in heaven already showed with gifts.

Angels go into the lake of fire by their own autonomous free will choice. Do you feel God made a mistake by giving them just a little autonomous free will, because if He removes their free will He also removes their ability to accept and extend Godly type Love.

Like I said before, autonomous free will is the problem, not the solution. How do you know that angels were created with an autonomous free will? How do you know that man was created with an autonomous free will? There is no scripture that says so. Your idea that someone absolutely must have an autonomous free will in order to accept and extend Godly type love is simply wrong from my POV. I challenge you to find any scripture at all that states that. In fact, you have to read that into the text that you read, since you cannot get that out of it.

But the confusion is in what realm are you talking about when you talk about "free will"? Any human being potentially has a free will from other humans, and this is in the natural realm. If someone is not threatened, coerced, or otherwise persuaded to go against what they desire, then a person can make whatever choice they want. But people also have a desire to live, so if they are threatened, they are willing to do what the tyrant wants in spite of their desire against it. They are still making a free will choice, even though in a court of law it would not be considered a free will choice, but one under duress.

But in the spiritual realm, if a person has a free autonomous will in relationship with God, then that person is in rebellion, and is an authority unto themselves. This is what I believe God meant when He said "they have become like Us," meaning that man determines what is right and wrong for himself. So his autonomy is the problem, and is the essence of the sinful nature. If one is under God's authority, then his choices are pleasing to God, being the same as God's will. If one is not under God's authority, then his choices are sins, because he is choosing to do only what he himself desires, and God is not with him in directing those desires.

The confusion between what is in the spiritual realm that is not like the natural is a common one. Many are confused about it. But Paul makes a distinction between the two realms when he wrote "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for God is at work in you, to will and do His good pleasure." He exhorts us to work out in the natural realm what God has worked and is working in us in the spiritual realm. In the natural realm, He lets us have our stinking autonomy, but in the spiritual realm, He doesn't allow it for His children (Ref. Heb. 12).

I am not “judging” God with my understanding of salvation, since it is all up to man’s autonomous free will choice. It is only when you say: “the choice of who goes to heaven or hell is totally up to God and from all appearances it is an arbitrary choice.” Then the blame for the lost is shifted from man to God, which cannot be true, knowing “God is Love”.

Faith in Christ is a righteous move toward God. "Righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ." The scripture is clear about that. But if you claim that anyone can "direct faith toward God" in this manner, then you are claiming that all men are righteous enough to do it. Yet Paul is clear: "there is no one righteous, no one who understands, no one who seeks God." Your idea that "man's autonomous free will choice" gets them into God grace, you have to presume that all men are seeking God, all men understand, all men are righteous enough to make such a decision. So I take it you don't believe the doctrine of Total Depravity.

You are left with “God has His own reasons…”, but what you describe as the selection method is an arbitrary selection. Jesus gives a reason to those lost at judgement and it is not “sorry God did not chose you”, but something the lost decided not to do: Matt. 25: 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

The Lost were given a logical reason for being Lost.

When Jesus says to someone "depart from Me, I never knew you," do you think He doesn't know them in the same sense as you use "knowing"? God knows everyone a whole lot better than anyone knows themselves. Therefore, He is saying they were not chosen for salvation, and He gives the reason for their condemnation - "you workers of iniquity."

I agree that the lost are given a logical reason for being lost, their sin, and this is justice. But what does your response imply? It implies that you demand that those who are saved are done that to them according to justice, that is, according to their deeds, according to what they have chosen. This is merited grace.

I get that this is where you're stuck. You can't see that unmerited grace means that God pours out showers of blessing on those who don't deserve it by reason of anything in that person. This includes any positive choice they might make. The blessing is regeneration and renewal of the Spirit, which changes the disposition of the heart of people who once hated God and what He stood for. Unmerited grace goes against the justice that is exercised on the rest of mankind, and this is why it's a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

“faith” in a pagan type god will not result in being showered with wonderful gifts and thus produce good works, but directing that same “faith” toward God who showers you with gifts will result in your doing good stuff out of gratitude. This is the faith both Paul and James are talking about but Paul is only referring to a “faith” in God.

It's getting so I can't agree with almost anything you say now. How do you know that faith in a pagan god will not result in being showered with wonderful gifts? Why do you think that idolatry is addictive? Why do you think that it's near impossible to persuade people of other religions to convert to Christianity? Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all believe they receive blessings from God. Have you actually talked to any of those people?

The fact is, it takes an act of God for someone to convert to Christianity. It takes a personal revelation from God to reveal the truth about the gospel to individuals. This is what Eph. 2 is about.

No, according to my response all your list of good things come after the person agrees to humbly accept all these undeserving gifts as pure charity. This does not require regeneration, change of heart, wisdom, or anything spiritual, just a selfish desire to willingly accept pure undeserving charity as charity from someone they hate.

For someone to "humbly accept" as you say, it requires they:
1. Already have knowledge of God and His sovereignty
2. Already have the willingness to crucify their ego
3. Already have hope that Christ reconciles them to God
IOW, they have to have already heard the gospel, God revealed Himself, gifted them with saving faith (howbeit a seed so small perhaps they can't see it yet), and the attitude of their heart changed from hostile to friendly. But I suspect you will refuse to see it.

No, having the gift of faith, means you can believe in people and things which all mature adults have. Not believing in a specific person or thing does not mean you cannot believe in them but you chose not to believe in them.

Again, you're talking about natural faith, not spiritual Biblical faith. IMO you are confused on this point.

What I am saying they can but chose not to believe, while your saying they are asked commanded and so on, but can’t believe.

My statement stands, since Paul clearly teaches this in 1 Cor. 2 and John writes "the whole world is under the control of the evil one."

It appears to me you just can't accept what the scripture says because you're stuck in your reasoning and judgment of how you think God ought to act.

If you continue to be stuck there, then I think I'm done with this conversation.
TD

 

[bling]

Direction of "faith" is not the issue. The real issue is who a person believes. "This is eternal life, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He sent." What I am saying is that if a person doesn't have the gift of Biblical faith from God, by virtue of God's personal revelation to that person, then that person cannot direct any faith toward the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He sent, since they don't know Him. At best that person will "direct" their faith toward who they think God is according to their assessment. This is what people in all the religions of the world do.

No, I do not feel I in anyway give direction to whom God saves, where that seems to be your doctrine?

Election is set in stone: “Those who humbly accept God’s Love (charity) are saved.”

My pray is in allowing the Spirit to work through me to provide the very best opportunity for the nonbelieving sinner to humbly accept God’s charity. So, I would pray to surrender my will to the Spirit to allow Him to show, extend, give, and accept Godly type Love through me. I need the very best words to help my friend, listen to my friend, be with my friend, mentor and teach my friend. I might also pray for God to send others to my friend, provide a situation now to allow my friend to come to his senses (which could be throwing him in a pigsty like the prodigal son).

It has nothing to do with how I feel. I just know what the Bible says. Do you believe God works through you or not? Do you believe Rom. 8:26 or not?

Answered above.

And you don't believe that you are a disciple of Jesus? You don't think this applies to you?

The verse following your select are to all believers, so look at the next section.

No one who rejects Christ knows God, according to scripture.

Right, God is their enemy and they hate Him and Christ, but that does not mean they would not humbly accept undeserved needed charity from God/Christ and “believe” their enemy might do such a thing.

"To the Jews, a stumbling block, and to Greeks, foolishness." Yes, they think the gospel is a scam, and there is no way they will believe unless God reveals the truth to those individuals.

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

“Christ crucified” message was a stumbling block and foolishness specifically, but God’s Love to forgive their sins and have eternal life in heaven was not hard to accept.

God is their enemy and they hate Him and Christ, but that does not mean they would not humbly accept undeserved needed charity from God/Christ and “believe” their enemy might do such a thing.

"Unjustly" is your assessment, based on how justice is defined in your culture. You think of niceness, fairness, equal treatment, etc. as just, and anything you don't see conforms to that, you reject as being unjust. But what about "the last shall be first, and the first last"? What about "Don't I have the right to do what I want with my money, or are you envious that I am generous to others"? What about the prodigal's father having a party for the returning son but never for his brother? I think your commitment to unequal treatment being unjust is not Biblical. Jesus healed many, but paid no attention to most of the people in the crowds as He passed by them. The very nature of the mercy taught in Rom. 9 shows that God does not treat everyone the same.

I have taught many a lesson from Junior high to adults the story of the Matt 20:1-19.

This “Landowner” is representing the fair just Loving God and how the Kingdom works (which is not like a business):

1. Is God concerned with how much you got “done” in the kingdom here on earth (did the thief on the cross get less in heaven than someone who worked hard for 50 years in the kingdom)?

2. Yes, the land owner (God) treated all the workers the same in what he was concerned with: ALL the workers had to want (feel a need) enough to go to where the work was (like the prodigal son returning home), they had to “accept” the work when offered, they had to go to the work, and they had to stay working until the end of the day.

3. Does it really “matter” who was paid first since they all get the same? By rewarding generously, the last, those who were first standing around had a chance to share in the Landowners generosity and the joy of those be “gifted” (that is a gift for those who came first). This is also a lesson for the Jews to rejoice over the acceptance of the Gentiles (a later group).

The prodigal son story is another lesson for the Jews to accept the gentiles, also.

It is a very good question about the older son not being given a party, so does that mean the older sons heart is nothing to celebrate, yet? So, we see what the father (God) celebrates, so what did the father have to celebrate with the older son?

We know there is a huge celebration in heaven over one sinner who repents, but what about celebrating those who have just stuck around not out of “Love”, but have been “good” at fulfilling their duty?

If the older son does not join the father celebrating the young son’s return, then he is lacking in Godly type Love, which is the one thing the father seems to appreciate (very much like God).


I have already explained Romans 9, which shows there is no advantage to being born a Jew over a Gentile when it comes to the one important gift, salvation.

Regardless of how you interpret that section, the whole message of Rom. 8 through 11 is about God's sovereignty. God chooses individuals to favor, just as He chooses nations. God chose one son of Abraham's and not the other. He chose one son of Isaac's and not the other. The point of ch. 9 is that God is sovereign in His choice, and it doesn't depend on what those people were going to do. What the chosen do, they do because they are chosen, not the other way.

The whole “message” of Ro. 9-11 is the equality of Jewish and Gentile, when it comes to the one important thing and that is salvation. Ro. 8 goes along with Ro. 7 since Ro. 8 starts off “Therefore”. “by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body,” and “If God is for us, who can be against us?” explains what Paul is getting across.

Like I said before, autonomous free will is the problem, not the solution. How do you know that angels were created with an autonomous free will? How do you know that man was created with an autonomous free will? There is no scripture that says so. Your idea that someone absolutely must have an autonomous free will in order to accept and extend Godly type love is simply wrong from my POV. I challenge you to find any scripture at all that states that. In fact, you have to read that into the text that you read, since you cannot get that out of it.

The reason angel had to be created with some very limited amount of autonomous free will is the fact a third of them chose to follow satan. If that was not their choice, then why did a third do that and if it is just their “nature” to do such a thing, then why did all of them not follow satan?

How Godly type Love is defined, how justice is defined, what happened in the Garden, and what man’s objective is supports the idea of man having some limited autonomous free will.

Everything that has happened, is happening and will happen points toward willing individuals having to make at least one autonomous free will choice to accept or reject God’s Love. So, if man does not have some autonomous free will there is not reason for: hell, time on earth, Christ going to the cross, tragedies, or Christ to come back.

God’s Love is not a kneejerk reaction, but is thought out, illogical, and the result of a free will choice, so if we are to obtain such a Love it cannot be made instinctive to man (robotic) nor can it be force on man (like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun).

Do you feel the angels who left to follow satan had a free will choice?

Do you feel Adam and Eve made a free will choice?

Where does scripture say: “Man cannot make a free will choice”, so the free will offering is not possible?

But the confusion is in what realm are you talking about when you talk about "free will"? Any human being potentially has a free will from other humans, and this is in the natural realm. If someone is not threatened, coerced, or otherwise persuaded to go against what they desire, then a person can make whatever choice they want. But people also have a desire to live, so if they are threatened, they are willing to do what the tyrant wants in spite of their desire against it. They are still making a free will choice, even though in a court of law it would not be considered a free will choice, but one under duress.

But in the spiritual realm, if a person has a free autonomous will in relationship with God, then that person is in rebellion, and is an authority unto themselves. This is what I believe God meant when He said "they have become like Us," meaning that man determines what is right and wrong for himself. So his autonomy is the problem, and is the essence of the sinful nature. If one is under God's authority, then his choices are pleasing to God, being the same as God's will. If one is not under God's authority, then his choices are sins, because he is choosing to do only what he himself desires, and God is not with him in directing those desires.

You say: “his choices are pleasing to God”, but if they are not autonomous free will choices, why would God be pleased with man for making those nonchoices?

I agree the sinner cannot desire to please God, but why can’t the Christian making free will choices to Love God out of a desire to please God?

You talk about the sinner making a free will choice under duress, but that could be like the prodigal son make a free will choice under extreme duress to save his life.

Faith in Christ is a righteous move toward God. "Righteousness comes by faith in Jesus Christ." The scripture is clear about that. But if you claim that anyone can "direct faith toward God" in this manner, then you are claiming that all men are righteous enough to do it. Yet Paul is clear: "there is no one righteous, no one who understands, no one who seeks God." Your idea that "man's autonomous free will choice" gets them into God grace, you have to presume that all men are seeking God, all men understand, all men are righteous enough to make such a decision. So I take it you don't believe the doctrine of Total Depravity.

I do not believe as you believe in the “Doctrine” of “total Depravity”, but please do not jump to the conclusion: “I think man can save himself or be sinless”, since that is not what I am saying. All mature adults will sin.

I do not have to “assume” your list of qualities would be found in all humans all the time.

We agree all humans have a “general type faith”, I am just saying you can place that general type faith toward God/Christ.

I get that this is where you're stuck. You can't see that unmerited grace means that God pours out showers of blessing on those who don't deserve it by reason of anything in that person. This includes any positive choice they might make. The blessing is regeneration and renewal of the Spirit, which changes the disposition of the heart of people who once hated God and what He stood for. Unmerited grace goes against the justice that is exercised on the rest of mankind, and this is why it's a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.

I fully agree: “that unmerited grace means that God pours out showers of blessing on those who don't deserve it by reason of anything in that person”, right!!!

There is nothing noble, worthy, righteous, honorable, glorious or holy in humbly accepting pure undeserved charity, like a sincere undeserving bagger needing pure charity.

All mature adults start out needing pure undeserved charity (unmerited grace), because of their sins and God is fairly and justly offering that charity to everyone. You are the one saying God only offers this unmerited grace to some and not all?

 

[bling]

It's getting so I can't agree with almost anything you say now. How do you know that faith in a pagan god will not result in being showered with wonderful gifts? Why do you think that idolatry is addictive? Why do you think that it's near impossible to persuade people of other religions to convert to Christianity? Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all believe they receive blessings from God. Have you actually talked to any of those people?

I talked with Muslims Saturday and meet with a former Buddhist on Tues. They do not get true blessings for those “gods”? Pagan gods do not exist, so how could those nonexistent gods do anything?

The fact is, it takes an act of God for someone to convert to Christianity. It takes a personal revelation from God to reveal the truth about the gospel to individuals. This is what Eph. 2 is about.

No that is not what Eph. 2 is about. Have you not been involved with allowing the Spirit to work through you in the conversion of a person?

It appears to me you just can't accept what the scripture says because you're stuck in your reasoning and judgment of how you think God ought to act.

I cannot get around God’s unbelievable huge Love for humans, which you say: “only exists for the elect”, but cannot explain why it would not be for everyone?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I see that you are not willing to engage the 5 points of TULIP, from my challenge in post #593.

When it comes down to actually defending one's theology, point by point, it can get sticky.

 

[tdidymas]

OK, I see that you are not willing to engage the 5 points of TULIP, from my challenge in post #593.

When it comes down to actually defending one's theology, point by point, it can get sticky.

I'm not willing to write a thesis on the matter which I think you want. What I'm trying to do is get to the root issue of what it's all based on, but you keep avoiding it. The crux of the issue is in 1 Cor. 2:14 and Eph. 2:5, taking those verses in context.

You claim that a person can choose to believe the gospel (in the same sense as "belief" is used in the NT), on his own, by himself, without God pushing him to it. This idea is inherent by nature in the term "free will" and how you are using the term. This idea is contrary to the idea of Total Depravity, which is "the big T". The rest of the TULIP can't stand if man is not totally depraved.

But to dispel your misunderstanding about the term, it is speaking of a spiritual condition, which is veiled behind the flesh and soul of man. The idea of sinful nature is not that man makes mistakes, but rather that he is a sin generator, or an idol factory. Unbelievers can do nice things, and things that seem good to others, but it doesn't make him NOT totally depraved. That term might not be the best term anyway. I think it was the Remonstrants who came up with it. I prefer the term Total Inability in regard to the things of God.

It is interesting to me that you use Eph. 2:5 to prove the exact opposite of what I prove with it. But my question to you is, why do you think that a Spiritless (unregenerate) person is able to generate faith that justifies him? I think you are confusing natural ability with spiritual ability. Paul made this distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14.

In regard to regeneration preceding faith, a person must become a spiritual person (according to Paul) before they can understand and believe the gospel. It takes personal revelation from the Spirit of God to get someone to believe the message. Just because someone is convicted of sin, it doesn't make them able to respond favorably to the gospel. It requires a lot more than that.

So, faith is not something that man's fleshly mind reasons out. It rises up from the spirit ("with the heart man believes unto righteousness..."), and is realized by the mind as a revelation from God, and treated as truth. The Spirit of God whispers, breathes, or whatever term can be used, the knowledge of God into the spirit of man. This is the action of raising us up to the heavenlies in Christ. It's the action of regeneration.

So what I describe here is actually simultaneous generation of faith and regeneration of spirit. So here is the crossroads. I say that according to 1 Cor. 2:14, regeneration logically precedes faith, since:
1. faith and salvation are together.
2. No one who is saved lacks faith.
3. Everyone having faith is saved.
4. The natural man cannot understand.
5. The spiritual man does understand (and believes).

More evidence: 1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Here we observe: Every person with faith is born of God - so we can say that if anyone has faith in Christ, he has already been born of God. This shows that regeneration precedes faith. By this verse, I also conclude that no one can believe in Christ and not be born of God, even if that state is temporary.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not willing to write a thesis on the matter which I think you want.

All I've asked for is for you to provide biblical support for each point. Maybe my request isn't such an easy task. I never even suggested a thesis. So you don't have to get so dramatic. And what you "think" is incorrect.

Can you provide at least 1 verse that supports the 5 points? By that, I mean 1 verse for each point.

What I'm trying to do is get to the root issue of what it's all based on, but you keep avoiding it. The crux of the issue is in 1 Cor. 2:14 and Eph. 2:5, taking those verses in context.

You claim that a person can choose to believe the gospel (in the same sense as "belief" is used in the NT), on his own, by himself, without God pushing him to it. This idea is inherent by nature in the term "free will" and how you are using the term. This idea is contrary to the idea of Total Depravity, which is "the big T". The rest of the TULIP can't stand if man is not totally depraved.

Exactly!! My idea IS contrary to the idea of Total Depravity. So, can you find ANY verse that supports the claim that a person cannot believe the gospel apart from God causing him/her to believe.

But to dispel your misunderstanding about the term, it is speaking of a spiritual condition, which is veiled behind the flesh and soul of man. The idea of sinful nature is not that man makes mistakes, but rather that he is a sin generator, or an idol factory. Unbelievers can do nice things, and things that seem good to others, but it doesn't make him NOT totally depraved. That term might not be the best term anyway. I think it was the Remonstrants who came up with it. I prefer the term Total Inability in regard to the things of God.

OK. I don't care whether you like "depravity" or "inability". My challenge is for you to find at least ONE verse that supports your claim that it is God who causes man to believe.

It is interesting to me that you use Eph. 2:5 to prove the exact opposite of what I prove with it.

That means that one of us is wrong. But don't forget I also included v.8 that proves my claim.

But my question to you is, why do you think that a Spiritless (unregenerate) person is able to generate faith that justifies him?

Because faith isn't "generated". That is a bogus word. It isn't even close to what goes on when a person decides what to believe or not.

I think you are confusing natural ability with spiritual ability. Paul made this distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14.

No he didn't.

In regard to regeneration preceding faith, a person must become a spiritual person (according to Paul) before they can understand and believe the gospel.

No he didn't. And I've seen many unbelievers who actually fully understand the gospel message even though they don't believe it.

Are you able to understand a concept (like communism or socialism) yet reject it as truth?

It takes personal revelation from the Spirit of God to get someone to believe the message.

And this comes from explaining the gospel to an unbeliever.

Don't forget that God has already revealed His power and divine nature from creation, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God and giving thanks to Him.

Rom 1:19,20

Further, Rom 2:14 tells us that God created mankind with a conscience, so that they can distinguish between right and wrong. No real mystery here.

Just because someone is convicted of sin, it doesn't make them able to respond favorably to the gospel. It requires a lot more than that.

Then back up this claim from Scripture. So far, all you've got are Calvinist talking points.

So, faith is not something that man's fleshly mind reasons out.

Nonsense. Man puts his faith in any number of things, and even changes his mind from time to time. You have NO evidence to place believing the gospel is some other kind of activity than believing anything else.

Again, God gave mankind a conscience and has revealed Himself through creation. That's all that is needed to make a decision regarding the gospel.

It rises up from the spirit ("with the heart man believes unto righteousness...")

Uh, no. It rises up from the HEART", just as Rom 10 says. Nothing about the Spirit.

and is realized by the mind as a revelation from God, and treated as truth. The Spirit of God whispers, breathes, or whatever term can be used, the knowledge of God into the spirit of man. This is the action of raising us up to the heavenlies in Christ. It's the action of regeneration.

I've already shown that regeneration follows faith from Eph 2:5 and 8. And you haven't refuted it from Scripture.

So what I describe here is actually simultaneous generation of faith and regeneration of spirit. So here is the crossroads. I say that according to 1 Cor. 2:14, regeneration logically precedes faith, since:
1. faith and salvation are together.
2. No one who is saved lacks faith.
3. Everyone having faith is saved.
4. The natural man cannot understand.
5. The spiritual man does understand (and believes).

I totally reject #4. I've read many religion articles in Time, Newsweek, etc where unbelievers can accurately describe the gospel message, all the while rejecting the truth of it. Some even mock the message, which was accurately described.

More evidence: 1 Jn. 5:1 "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." Here we observe: Every person with faith is born of God - so we can say that if anyone has faith in Christ, he has already been born of God.

Here's the rub. "who believes" is a particle, not a verb. It literally says "the believing ones have been born of God".

So, from the perspective of the speaker, he is saying that those who are believing NOW have been born of God.

If you placed your faith in Christ in 2019, John would say the same thing about you.

The believing TD has been born of God.

How could be any different? No unbeliever has been born of God. Only those who have believed.

Keep in mind that John wasn't referring to believing as just now occurring, and that the believer had to be born again before they could believe. But that's what Calvinism believes.

This shows that regeneration precedes faith.

No it doesn't. And Eph 2;5 and 8 prove the opposite.

 

[tdidymas]

All I've asked for is for you to provide biblical support for each point. Maybe my request isn't such an easy task. I never even suggested a thesis. So you don't have to get so dramatic. And what you "think" is incorrect.

Can you provide at least 1 verse that supports the 5 points? By that, I mean 1 verse for each point.


Exactly!! My idea IS contrary to the idea of Total Depravity. So, can you find ANY verse that supports the claim that a person cannot believe the gospel apart from God causing him/her to believe.


OK. I don't care whether you like "depravity" or "inability". My challenge is for you to find at least ONE verse that supports your claim that it is God who causes man to believe.


That means that one of us is wrong. But don't forget I also included v.8 that proves my claim.


Because faith isn't "generated". That is a bogus word. It isn't even close to what goes on when a person decides what to believe or not.


No he didn't.


No he didn't. And I've seen many unbelievers who actually fully understand the gospel message even though they don't believe it.

Are you able to understand a concept (like communism or socialism) yet reject it as truth?


And this comes from explaining the gospel to an unbeliever.

Don't forget that God has already revealed His power and divine nature from creation, so that no one has any excuse for not glorifying Him as God and giving thanks to Him.

Rom 1:19,20

Further, Rom 2:14 tells us that God created mankind with a conscience, so that they can distinguish between right and wrong. No real mystery here.


Then back up this claim from Scripture. So far, all you've got are Calvinist talking points.


Nonsense. Man puts his faith in any number of things, and even changes his mind from time to time. You have NO evidence to place believing the gospel is some other kind of activity than believing anything else.

Again, God gave mankind a conscience and has revealed Himself through creation. That's all that is needed to make a decision regarding the gospel.


Uh, no. It rises up from the HEART", just as Rom 10 says. Nothing about the Spirit.


I've already shown that regeneration follows faith from Eph 2:5 and 8. And you haven't refuted it from Scripture.


I totally reject #4. I've read many religion articles in Time, Newsweek, etc where unbelievers can accurately describe the gospel message, all the while rejecting the truth of it. Some even mock the message, which was accurately described.


Here's the rub. "who believes" is a particle, not a verb. It literally says "the believing ones have been born of God".

So, from the perspective of the speaker, he is saying that those who are believing NOW have been born of God.

If you placed your faith in Christ in 2019, John would say the same thing about you.

The believing TD has been born of God.

How could be any different? No unbeliever has been born of God. Only those who have believed.

Keep in mind that John wasn't referring to believing as just now occurring, and that the believer had to be born again before they could believe. But that's what Calvinism believes.


No it doesn't. And Eph 2;5 and 8 prove the opposite.

I disagree with the way you are interpreting those verses. Here is an example, 1 Jn. 5:1 - it doesn't matter that it says "the believing ones" vs. "everyone who believes." There is no change in the logic. If anyone believes, they have already been born of God. The language is clear.

And yes, you are confusing the natural act of believing with the spiritual act of believing. Paul did indeed make such distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1. He is talking about the gospel message. He talked about it since chapter 1 and is still talking about it, as he has not changed the subject.
2. It says "neither can he know..." which is a statement about unregenerate man's inability to understand the gospel.

And I don't care that atheists can regurgitate Biblical doctrine in a clear manner that you think is right. If they are not obeying the gospel, then they don't understand it from a spiritual standpoint. The Bible says whoever knows the right way and doesn't follow it is a fool, and no one born of God is a fool from a spiritual standpoint. Whoever is led by the Holy Spirit are the ones born of God. This movement comes out of the spirit, not out of a fleshly mind.

Rom. 2:14: man's conscience is not enough to cause faith in Christ, since God must reveal Himself to us above and beyond conviction of sin.

Eph. 2:5,8: I've already explained that salvation, grace, and faith come together. You can't have faith chronologically prior to salvation, since 1 Jn. 5:1 says that whoever believes has been born of God. When Paul says "and that, not of yourselves," he is pointing to all 3 movements including faith. It's not of ourselves, but is a gift of God. Salvation is the gift of God, grace is the gift of God, and faith is the gift of God.

And it must be so, since Jer. 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" In order for sinful man to have a saving faith in his heart, God must change the disposition of his heart.

So, in regard to total depravity, I say that Rom. 3:10-18 includes all of us (including you) prior to salvation. If you disagree with that, then our paths diverge.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

I disagree with the way you are interpreting those verses. Here is an example, 1 Jn. 5:1 - it doesn't matter that it says "the believing ones" vs. "everyone who believes." There is no change in the logic. If anyone believes, they have already been born of God. The language is clear.

You just keep missing the point. The "believing" is present tense. That means they are believing NOW, or currently. It says nothing about initial faith in Christ following being born again, as you seem trying to do.

And yes, you are confusing the natural act of believing with the spiritual act of believing.

Please prove your view. There is no difference. You're just "spiritualizing" things, a common practice.

Paul did indeed make such distinction in 1 Cor. 2:14: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
1. He is talking about the gospel message. He talked about it since chapter 1 and is still talking about it, as he has not changed the subject.
2. It says "neither can he know..." which is a statement about unregenerate man's inability to understand the gospel.

#1 - you're wrong. Just check the context to understand what Paul was referring to.

v.8 - We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

v.10 - these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

What Paul is referring to in this context is that unbelievers cannot understand (comprehend) advanced doctrines (deep things of God).

to consider the gospel message as a "deep thing of God" is absurd. Again, I've read many articles by unbelievers in Time, Newsweek, etc who were able to clearly explain the gospel message, all the while rejecting it as truth. That alone refutes your view.

And I don't care that atheists can regurgitate Biblical doctrine in a clear manner that you think is right.

I didn't say biblical doctrine. I said the gospel. And don't dismiss this as just memorizing some words without meaning. That is absurd. Unbelievers CAN and DO understand the gospel message when presented, all the while rejecting it.

If they are not obeying the gospel, then they don't understand it from a spiritual standpoint.

More examples of your "spiritualizing" tendencies.

The Bible says whoever knows the right way and doesn't follow it is a fool, and no one born of God is a fool from a spiritual standpoint.

You can leave out your "spiritual standpoint". But you are right. Those who know the right way and don't follow it IS a fool. But, what does this have to do with your claim?

Whoever is led by the Holy Spirit are the ones born of God. This movement comes out of the spirit, not out of a fleshly mind.

Sure. The Holy Spirit doesn't lead unbelievers. That would be absurd.

Rom. 2:14: man's conscience is not enough to cause faith in Christ, since God must reveal Himself to us above and beyond conviction of sin.

Here's the problem. You think faith must be caused by some "outside force". Well, you have no support from Scripture.

In fact, Scripture says that the force is internal. "Man believes with the heart". Rom 10.

Eph. 2:5,8: I've already explained that salvation, grace, and faith come together. You can't have faith chronologically prior to salvation, since 1 Jn. 5:1 says that whoever believes has been born of God. When Paul says "and that, not of yourselves," he is pointing to all 3 movements including faith. It's not of ourselves, but is a gift of God. Salvation is the gift of God, grace is the gift of God, and faith is the gift of God.

And...what are you trying to prove here? My point stands: since v.5 shows that "being made alive" is equated with "being saved", and v.8 shows that we are saved THROUGH faith, belief precedes salvation. Just as belief precedes being made alive.

And it must be so, since Jer. 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" In order for sinful man to have a saving faith in his heart, God must change the disposition of his heart.

Now you're just presuming, a whole lot. The Bible doesn't say what you claim.

So, in regard to total depravity, I say that Rom. 3:10-18 includes all of us (including you) prior to salvation. If you disagree with that, then our paths diverge.
TD

Total depravity, according to the Bible, means that man is unable to find favor with God through his own actions. He can't save himself. So he needs a Savior.

But the act of believing isn't meritorious. It doesn't earn anything from God.

However, God's plan of salvation is that those who believe will be saved. By His grace, not by man's action.

But Calvinism twists the idea by adding that man cannot believe on his own. He needs to be regenerated. Even though NO verse says so.

 

[tdidymas]

You just keep missing the point. The "believing" is present tense. That means they are believing NOW, or currently. It says nothing about initial faith in Christ following being born again, as you seem trying to do.

This is your misunderstanding. Once a person starts believing, it is in the now, which means that regeneration is in the past. Besides that, the translation I quoted has it in the present tense - "Everyone who believes..." John 5:24 "... whoever hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." - "Has passed" is past tense. Rebirth is a past event for whoever believes.

Please prove your view. There is no difference. You're just "spiritualizing" things, a common practice.

I've already proved that by explaining 1 Cor. 2:14.

#1 - you're wrong. Just check the context to understand what Paul was referring to.

He's talking about the gospel message, which is far too deep for the fleshly mind to fathom. There are basic elementary parts of it (Heb. 6) and there are deep parts of it (Rom. 8). But it is all the gospel message. Paul's flow of conversation in 1 Cor. 1-2 has not changed subject. He is still talking about the gospel message he preached to the Corinthians, and continues through ch. 3 and onward. If you think he is talking about something different than that gospel, then you are taking scripture out of context, and putting in a premise that doesn't belong.

v.8 - We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.

v.10 - these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

What Paul is referring to in this context is that unbelievers cannot understand (comprehend) advanced doctrines (deep things of God).

Has it occurred to you that you might not be mature enough to understand these deep doctrines? You might well enough think you understand, but perhaps time will prove that out. Have you had a spiritual (supernatural) experience that brought you to deeper understanding of God and His word? Or is your knowledge purely intellectual?

to consider the gospel message as a "deep thing of God" is absurd. Again, I've read many articles by unbelievers in Time, Newsweek, etc who were able to clearly explain the gospel message, all the while rejecting it as truth. That alone refutes your view.

No refutation, since I already explained this. Man's feeble fleshly mind can't fathom the truth of the gospel message, and that's why they think it's bunk.

I didn't say biblical doctrine. I said the gospel. And don't dismiss this as just memorizing some words without meaning. That is absurd. Unbelievers CAN and DO understand the gospel message when presented, all the while rejecting it.

The gospel is biblical doctrine, and is all-encompassing. Paul explicitly says that the gospel is foolishness to the gentile. Yes, people have minds, yes, they are intelligent, yes, they can give right answers. He's not talking about that, and neither am I. Paul is talking about a wisdom that only comes from above (also Ja. 3:17), which is given to the soul of man from the Spirit.

More examples of your "spiritualizing" tendencies.

Do you deny that regeneration is a spiritual event, which is a supernatural act of God? Do you deny that being led by the Spirit is something that transcends natural senses and reasoning? Do you deny that "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit" is a supernatural event?

You can leave out your "spiritual standpoint". But you are right. Those who know the right way and don't follow it IS a fool. But, what does this have to do with your claim?

I already said it. No saint is a fool. When God gifts a person with life by free grace, that person is turned into a saint.

Here's the problem. You think faith must be caused by some "outside force". Well, you have no support from Scripture.

In fact, Scripture says that the force is internal. "Man believes with the heart". Rom 10.

It says he "believes" but this is after God did a supernatural work. "... believes unto righteousness", and for a person to "believe unto righteousness," he must have God's Spirit in him to produce the fruit thereof.

And...what are you trying to prove here? My point stands: since v.5 shows that "being made alive" is equated with "being saved", and v.8 shows that we are saved THROUGH faith, belief precedes salvation. Just as belief precedes being made alive.

I explained before by 1 Jn. 5:1 that regeneration precedes faith. Someone might argue that we're splitting hairs, because it seems to be simultaneous. So if it is simultaneous, then the difference is in who is doing the acting on faith. Obviously, man acts on faith, this is the point of the NT. But the point is also that God is acting, as much of the NT testifies (like Phil. 2:13 for example). I'm saying that God is the cause, and our faith and action thereof is the effect of God acting. Yes, it says through faith, but it is the faith that comes to us by the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in our hearts in which He brings the word of truth to life in us.

My objection to what you're saying is that this saving faith is not something that unregenerate man comes up with all by himself. If you think that, then our paths diverge.

Now you're just presuming, a whole lot. The Bible doesn't say what you claim.

You have the burden of proof to show my application is wrong.

Total depravity, according to the Bible, means that man is unable to find favor with God through his own actions. He can't save himself. So he needs a Savior.

Well, this is part of it, but Paul is much stronger on it in Rom. 3:10-18.

But the act of believing isn't meritorious. It doesn't earn anything from God.

It isn't meritorious in the sense of earning a wage, but it is meritorious in the sense of gaining justification.

However, God's plan of salvation is that those who believe will be saved. By His grace, not by man's action.

I agree.

But Calvinism twists the idea by adding that man cannot believe on his own. He needs to be regenerated. Even though NO verse says so.[/QUOTE]
"He saved us by the washing of regeneration..."
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is your misunderstanding. Once a person starts believing, it is in the now, which means that regeneration is in the past.

So far, so good. Right. The person is saved the MOMENT they are regenerated. And once regenerated, NO ONE can become UN-regenerated.

Remember, at that moment of regeneration, the believer was given eternal life. EL cannot die.

Besides that, the translation I quoted has it in the present tense - "Everyone who believes..." John 5:24 "... whoever hears My words and believes in Him who sent Me has eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life." - "Has passed" is past tense. Rebirth is a past event for whoever believes.

Yes, the PARTICIPLE is present tense. But you need to study participles and their tenses.

At least you understand that regeneration, rebirth is a point in time event. That's when the person FIRST believes. And is saved. And becomes a new creation.

Where are the verses that warn of losing their new creation status?

I've already proved that by explaining 1 Cor. 2:14.

You proved nothing. You gave your opinion. I proved that unbelievers CAN and Do understand the gospel message all the while rejecting it as truth. Your claim is that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel. Nonsense.

He's talking about the gospel message, which is far too deep for the fleshly mind to fathom.

This is your opinion, as I noted above.

There are basic elementary parts of it (Heb. 6) and there are deep parts of it (Rom. 8). But it is all the gospel message. Paul's flow of conversation in 1 Cor. 1-2 has not changed subject. He is still talking about the gospel message he preached to the Corinthians, and continues through ch. 3 and onward. If you think he is talking about something different than that gospel, then you are taking scripture out of context, and putting in a premise that doesn't belong.

I'm not the one taking anything out of context.

Has it occurred to you that you might not be mature enough to understand these deep doctrines?

I just pointed out from the context of 1 Cor 2 what the "natural man" cannot grasp which is the "deep things of God". This doesn't refer to the gospel but to advanced doctrines. Aren't you aware of the fact that the Bible teaches that believers need to grow up in respect to their salvation, and uses babies as a comparison. Babies can't eat steak but need milk. It's the mature believer that eats steak (understands advanced doctrine), and the baby believer who can't understand the deeper doctrines.

You might want to ask your question to your mirror.

You might well enough think you understand, but perhaps time will prove that out. Have you had a spiritual (supernatural) experience that brought you to deeper understanding of God and His word? Or is your knowledge purely intellectual?

Where in the world do you get your ideas from? Where does the Bible indicate that the believer gets a deeper understanding of God and His Word through from this "spiritual experience"?

I've never read anything from Paul, Peter, or John about this. So where did you get it from?

No refutation, since I already explained this. Man's feeble fleshly mind can't fathom the truth of the gospel message, and that's why they think it's bunk.

I've already proven otherwise, by all the unbelievers who can accurately explain the gospel but not believe it.

The gospel is biblical doctrine, and is all-encompassing. Paul explicitly says that the gospel is foolishness to the gentile. Yes, people have minds, yes, they are intelligent, yes, they can give right answers. He's not talking about that, and neither am I. Paul is talking about a wisdom that only comes from above (also Ja. 3:17), which is given to the soul of man from the Spirit.

It seems you totally missed Paul's point as to who he was writing to in Corinth. It was "the mature". He was addressing the believers who had grown up spiritually. And no "supernatural experience" necessary.

Do you deny that regeneration is a spiritual event, which is a supernatural act of God?

Of course not. Regeneration is the event when God supernaturally regenerates our DEAD human spirit. It is where the Holy Spirit resides.

What do you think died ON THE DAY that Adam ate the forbidden fruit?

Do you deny that being led by the Spirit is something that transcends natural senses and reasoning?

What do you mean by 'transcendsw natural senses/reasoning'? Please explain.

Do you deny that "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit" is a supernatural event?

Explain. The real question from Rom 8:16 is TO WHOM does the Spirit witness.

I already said it. No saint is a fool.

Hm. I guess Paul never got that memo.

Gal 3
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

When God gifts a person with life by free grace, that person is turned into a saint.

Do you understand the meaning of "saint"? Please define it.

It says he "believes" but this is after God did a supernatural work. "... believes unto righteousness", and for a person to "believe unto righteousness," he must have God's Spirit in him to produce the fruit thereof.

This is your opinion again. There is NOTHING in Rom 10 that supports your opinion.

I explained before by 1 Jn. 5:1 that regeneration precedes faith.

Your statement is an opinion. I explained why it is wrong.

If a person is believing now, it means they were born again WHEN they believed in the past. That's all it means.

My objection to what you're saying is that this saving faith is not something that unregenerate man comes up with all by himself. If you think that, then our paths diverge.

I really don't understand your frame of reference here. No one is "coming up with" anything. The gospel is something to be RECEIVED. That's ALL. God offers, and man either accepts or rejects. It is that simple. But you're making it altogether different.

It isn't meritorious in the sense of earning a wage, but it is meritorious in the sense of gaining justification.

Another opinion.

 

[tdidymas]

So far, so good. Right. The person is saved the MOMENT they are regenerated. And once regenerated, NO ONE can become UN-regenerated.

Remember, at that moment of regeneration, the believer was given eternal life. EL cannot die.

Yes, the PARTICIPLE is present tense. But you need to study participles and their tenses.

At least you understand that regeneration, rebirth is a point in time event. That's when the person FIRST believes. And is saved. And becomes a new creation.

Where are the verses that warn of losing their new creation status?

This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. What's your point?

You proved nothing. You gave your opinion. I proved that unbelievers CAN and Do understand the gospel message all the while rejecting it as truth. Your claim is that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel. Nonsense.

And this is where our paths diverge, because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a distinction between flesh and spirit. "That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit" - this is Jesus' statement of that distinction. If we cannot agree on this matter, then I think this conversation is closed.

This is your opinion, as I noted above.

Ditto.

I'm not the one taking anything out of context.

You have the burden of proof to show that. I explained that Paul does not change the subject in the flow of his conversation. I could show details, but I'm not going to write a dissertation. If you refuse to examine it carefully, there's nothing more I can do for you.

I just pointed out from the context of 1 Cor 2 what the "natural man" cannot grasp which is the "deep things of God". This doesn't refer to the gospel but to advanced doctrines. Aren't you aware of the fact that the Bible teaches that believers need to grow up in respect to their salvation, and uses babies as a comparison. Babies can't eat steak but need milk. It's the mature believer that eats steak (understands advanced doctrine), and the baby believer who can't understand the deeper doctrines.

You might want to ask your question to your mirror.[/quote]
I explained already to you that the gospel has many facets and depths. The whole NT is the gospel. Deep doctrines of the faith are all about the gospel, not about something other than the gospel. Paul wrote to the Corinthians as if they were fleshly minded people, but he wrote to the Romans and Ephesians as mature spiritually minded people. Why do you think the life of Jesus along with the whole of His teachings are called "the gospels"?

The deep things of God are part of the gospel, because they speak of who God is, and of the nature of our relationship with Him. The doctrine of Total Depravity (i.e. Original Sin) is a necessary part of the gospel, since it speaks of man's true spiritual condition and desperate need for Christ. The doctrine of predestination is necessary to comfort those who need to know God is in control. It is all gospel truths and directly related.

Where in the world do you get your ideas from? Where does the Bible indicate that the believer gets a deeper understanding of God and His Word through from this "spiritual experience"?

I've never read anything from Paul, Peter, or John about this. So where did you get it from?

Lk 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.
1Jn 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
Act 16:14 A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
Jn 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Rom 8:14 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Eph 1:18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints.

If you've ever had a spiritual breakthrough, you'd know what I'm talking about.

I've already proven otherwise, by all the unbelievers who can accurately explain the gospel but not believe it.

Again, you're not distinguishing between natural and spiritual understanding.

It seems you totally missed Paul's point as to who he was writing to in Corinth. It was "the mature". He was addressing the believers who had grown up spiritually. And no "supernatural experience" necessary.

No, he was writing to the Corinthians who were fleshly - ch. 3:1. The end of ch. 2 is telling those fleshly minded people that they are missing the deep things of God because they are yet unrepentant.

Of course not. Regeneration is the event when God supernaturally regenerates our DEAD human spirit. It is where the Holy Spirit resides.

What do you think died ON THE DAY that Adam ate the forbidden fruit?

What do you mean by 'transcendsw natural senses/reasoning'? Please explain.

There is a big confusion in modern culture about flesh and spirit. The culture defines spirit as base human desires, feelings, and emotions, which are actually in the realm of the flesh. If you understand what Paul is conveying in Rom. 8:13, you'll see that he is talking about 2 ways of living, in which one way is "following your heart" (which is a worldly slogan), meaning to follow desires and feelings. Except that is the way of death, according to Paul in this verse. Therefore, to follow the Spirit is to overlook personal desires and feelings, to follow what is known of God outside ourselves. This is the transcendence beyond natural senses and reasoning. And one must have some connection to God in that sense, because we can't live by blind faith. We have to have some kind of personal experiences with the personal God who speaks, thereby being led by the Spirit.

Explain. The real question from Rom 8:16 is TO WHOM does the Spirit witness.

Paul here is describing a personal experience with God, available to everyone who believes in Christ. The Spirit bore witness, and continues to bear witness to me.

Hm. I guess Paul never got that memo.

Gal 3
1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?

No, they weren't fools, and Paul did not judge them so. He calls them "foolish" to wake them up to the fact that they are not using the wisdom he imparted to them. Did the Galatians become apostate? No. Did they deny the faith? No. For all reasonable and practical reasons, they repented of their foolish and gullible side-bar. And God used it for our good, since we now have such a wonderful explanation of the free gift of God.

Do you understand the meaning of "saint"? Please define it.

It means "holy one." All Christians are sanctified in Christ, and therefore saints.

This is your opinion again. There is NOTHING in Rom 10 that supports your opinion.

In Rom. 3:31, Paul writes "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law." And how is the law established? By the Spirit dwelling in the hearts of people by faith, in which the Spirit produces the fruit thereof.

Your statement is an opinion. I explained why it is wrong.

If a person is believing now, it means they were born again WHEN they believed in the past. That's all it means.

Then our paths diverge here.

I really don't understand your frame of reference here. No one is "coming up with" anything. The gospel is something to be RECEIVED. That's ALL. God offers, and man either accepts or rejects. It is that simple. But you're making it altogether different.

A person cannot receive something they don't already believe. Therefore our paths diverge.

Another opinion.

Conflict of opinions or interpretations, our paths diverge. I think this is pretty much the end of this conversation.
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

I asked:
"Where are the verses that warn of losing their new creation status?"

This has nothing to do with the price of tea in China. What's your point?

What's your answer?

And this is where our paths diverge, because you refuse to acknowledge that there is a distinction between flesh and spirit.

Absolutely NOT. Of course there is a distinction. Heb 4:12 says so clearly.

"That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit" - this is Jesus' statement of that distinction. If we cannot agree on this matter, then I think this conversation is closed.

You really do fail to understand what I post. I've never suggested that they are the same. Why in the world would you conclude that from my posts?

I explained already to you that the gospel has many facets and depths. The whole NT is the gospel. Deep doctrines of the faith are all about the gospel, not about something other than the gospel.

You may express your own opinion as often as you want, but that doesn't change the truth. Paul was speaking to the mature in that context (v.6).

Paul wrote to the Corinthians as if they were fleshly minded people, but he wrote to the Romans and Ephesians as mature spiritually minded people. Why do you think the life of Jesus along with the whole of His teachings are called "the gospels"?

The word means "good news". That covers a lot of things. But only the good news that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing in Him will result in salvation is the ONLY WAY to be saved.

There are also a lot of news that is good that will result in blessings, and eternal reward if followed, but has nothing to do with getting saved, or staying saved.

The deep things of God are part of the gospel, because they speak of who God is, and of the nature of our relationship with Him.

Again, you just don't seem to want to admit there is even such a thing as "advanced doctrine".

The doctrine of Total Depravity (i.e. Original Sin) is a necessary part of the gospel, since it speaks of man's true spiritual condition and desperate need for Christ. The doctrine of predestination is necessary to comfort those who need to know God is in control. It is all gospel truths and directly related.

Actually, these are part of the deep truths or advanced doctrines that Paul was speaking about. Even believers who haven't grown in their faith don't understand many of these things. Many believers unfortunately just roll their eyes when the word "doctrine" is mentioned.

If you've ever had a spiritual breakthrough, you'd know what I'm talking about.

I asked for an explanation. This certainly doesn't cut it. It's just more condescending nonsense.

Again, you're not distinguishing between natural and spiritual understanding.

Faith in Christ is a matter of simply believing and accepting what God promises. But your view only tries to complicate matters and support your unbiblical theology by claiming that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel message for salvation until they are regenerated. But the Bible teaches that faith precedes regeneration, which I've already shown.

No, he was writing to the Corinthians who were fleshly - ch. 3:1. The end of ch. 2 is telling those fleshly minded people that they are missing the deep things of God because they are yet unrepentant.

Throughout the whole 1 Cor, Paul affirmed their saved state. But it is true many of the believers were NOT repentant. That means they weren't growing in the faith, not growing spiritually, not maturing in the faith. They couldn't understand the deep things of God, as believers.

No, they weren't fools, and Paul did not judge them so. He calls them "foolish" to wake them up to the fact that they are not using the wisdom he imparted to them.

This is just splitting hairs. To call someone "foolish" isn't really different than calling them a fool. If there is a difference, please explain.

It means "holy one." All Christians are sanctified in Christ, and therefore saints.

True, as positional truth. But there is also progressive truth, and not all believers become sanctified in that sense.

A person cannot receive something they don't already believe. Therefore our paths diverge.

I agree that the gift of eternal life is only given to those who believe. That means believing precedes receiving the gift.

 

[tdidymas]

I asked:
"Where are the verses that warn of losing their new creation status?"

What's your answer?

This Q is pointless and off topic.

Absolutely NOT. Of course there is a distinction. Heb 4:12 says so clearly.

You really do fail to understand what I post. I've never suggested that they are the same. Why in the world would you conclude that from my posts?

Because I have repeatedly said there is a difference between fleshly and spiritual understanding, and you have denied it.

You may express your own opinion as often as you want, but that doesn't change the truth. Paul was speaking to the mature in that context (v.6).

No, he wasn't. Mentioning that he speaks to mature people is not an acknowledgement that the Corinthians were mature. In fact, he called them immature in 3:1. Please do your homework and examine the full context of the passage.

The word means "good news". That covers a lot of things. But only the good news that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing in Him will result in salvation is the ONLY WAY to be saved.

There are also a lot of news that is good that will result in blessings, and eternal reward if followed, but has nothing to do with getting saved, or staying saved.

I disagree. One must know the bad news of the true condition of the soul before they can understand they have a need for a savior. And once a person has entered into relationship with Christ, they need to know that Christ has their back. The gospel covers all aspects of the Christian life, including ethics. In every epistle, the apostles declare what great things God has done for His people, and then exhorts them to behave accordingly. Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them," which means that a person proves his salvation status by what he does. The gospel covers it all, and therefore there are various aspects, dimensions, and mysteries of the gospel that the apostles cover in the doctrines they teach. The gospel is not limited to only the evangelistic aspect. Paul wrote of the gospel he was commissioned to teach to the gentiles, and declared that he taught them all the counsel of God.

Again, you just don't seem to want to admit there is even such a thing as "advanced doctrine".

Again, your misunderstanding. It took me more than 15 years to study and then fully embrace the sovereignty of God in salvation. Predestination is surely an advanced doctrine, and Peter himself wrote that Paul taught some things hard to understand. It doesn't mean it's not part of the gospel.

Actually, these are part of the deep truths or advanced doctrines that Paul was speaking about. Even believers who haven't grown in their faith don't understand many of these things. Many believers unfortunately just roll their eyes when the word "doctrine" is mentioned.

And unfortunately many have had slanders against "Calvinism" spoken into their ears. It's those slanders that cause divisions and prejudices against reformed doctrine.

I asked for an explanation. This certainly doesn't cut it. It's just more condescending nonsense.

I did explain, you're just not listening.

Faith in Christ is a matter of simply believing and accepting what God promises. But your view only tries to complicate matters and support your unbiblical theology by claiming that unbelievers cannot understand the gospel message for salvation until they are regenerated. But the Bible teaches that faith precedes regeneration, which I've already shown.

No, I refuted your idea already, you're just stubborn in it. And I also showed by 1 Cor. 2:14 that Paul says the unregenerate can't understand it. Oh, except you think he's talking about something else.

Throughout the whole 1 Cor, Paul affirmed their saved state. But it is true many of the believers were NOT repentant. That means they weren't growing in the faith, not growing spiritually, not maturing in the faith. They couldn't understand the deep things of God, as believers.

And here is where many people are confused, because they think that Paul telling the Corinthians that they are saints makes them assume that they all are actually saints. In the same way, many people read Jesus saying to the crowd "your Father in heaven" and assume that everyone in the crowd are children of God. This is an absurd assumption, because Jesus many times told parables about wheat and tares, sheep and goats, etc. And Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 6 a list of sins leading to death, in which he says "those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The most reasonable conclusion about this is that Paul is writing to a group of people who he knew some were true believers and some were not, just as it is the same situation today. Evangelists tell people if they prayed the sinner's prayer sincerely that they are born of God, knowing that some of them may fall away because they weren't really born again. And this is the actual result, that is, many who claim faith and are baptized really do fall away, which indicates a high probability that they weren't born again. Not to say they won't repent in their future.

This is just splitting hairs. To call someone "foolish" isn't really different than calling them a fool. If there is a difference, please explain.

There is a big difference. If a Christian commits sin, he doesn't become a sinner, since he repents of the sin and continues in relationship with Christ. When the NT speaks of sinners, it's talking about people who are unrepentant. "Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double minded." If I say to someone "you've done a foolish thing here," I am respecting that person as someone who is able to reflect on the reality of what they have done, in comparison to what wisdom tells them. But if I say "you fool," I am accusing them of a stupidity that they can't know or practice wisdom. If I call someone a sinner, then I'm categorizing them as an unrepentant and stiff-necked person. Do you see the difference? "You foolish Galatians" is a psychological shaking. His explanation is a respect that they can reflect on what Paul taught them in the past, and compare it with the bad doctrine they listened to. He's not calling them fools in the same sense as Proverbs uses the term.

True, as positional truth. But there is also progressive truth, and not all believers become sanctified in that sense.


I agree that the gift of eternal life is only given to those who believe. That means believing precedes receiving the gift.

1 Cor. 1:30-31 "And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."
TD

 

[FreeGrace2]

This Q is pointless and off topic.

Slick dodge.

I said:
" Of course there is a distinction. Heb 4:12 says so clearly.

You really do fail to understand what I post. I've never suggested that they are the same. Why in the world would you conclude that from my posts?"

Because I have repeatedly said there is a difference between fleshly and spiritual understanding, and you have denied it.

Why do you equate soul and spirit with fleshly and spiritual understanding?

I conclude that you don't understand either the soul or spirit. Please explain the difference between them. Heb 4:12 makes clear they ARE different.

One must know the bad news of the true condition of the soul before they can understand they have a need for a savior.

That's part of the "change of mind" that 'repents' includes. The Holy Spirit convicts of sin. It doesn't require regeneration.

Again, your misunderstanding. It took me more than 15 years to study and then fully embrace the sovereignty of God in salvation. Predestination is surely an advanced doctrine, and Peter himself wrote that Paul taught some things hard to understand. It doesn't mean it's not part of the gospel.

Please explain what "predestination" is.

And unfortunately many have had slanders against "Calvinism" spoken into their ears. It's those slanders that cause divisions and prejudices against reformed doctrine.

I can prove from Scripture that NONE of the 5 points are biblical. btw, none of them even include salvation. Well, the "U" does, but it's totally in error. Election isn't about being chosen for salvation. It's all about service. Easily provable.

No, I refuted your idea already, you're just stubborn in it.

lol. You sure thought so.

And I also showed by 1 Cor. 2:14 that Paul says the unregenerate can't understand it.

Show me where "it" refers to the simple gospel message of salvation.

Oh, except you think he's talking about something else.

I know it. From the context.

There is a big difference. If a Christian commits sin, he doesn't become a sinner, since he repents of the sin and continues in relationship with Christ.

Total confusion. All humans are born sinners, period. We sin because we are sinners. And gettint saved doesn't remove the fact that we will still sin if you thought so.

When the NT speaks of sinners, it's talking about people who are unrepentant.

I recommend that you study Paul more carefully.

1 Tim 1-
15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.
16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.

Twice Paul referred to himself as the worst of sinners.

"Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double minded."

Could you explain what you think this verse says?

If I say to someone "you've done a foolish thing here," I am respecting that person as someone who is able to reflect on the reality of what they have done, in comparison to what wisdom tells them. But if I say "you fool," I am accusing them of a stupidity that they can't know or practice wisdom. If I call someone a sinner, then I'm categorizing them as an unrepentant and stiff-necked person. Do you see the difference?

I do see your own confusion. And I do understand what Paul said.