Free will or predestination?

[Bible Highlighter]

That would be the simple meaning to make it agree with one's theology instead of the text.

The definition of repentance is a "change of mind," not the opportunity for a change of mind.
God granted an actual change of mind.
(Been there, done that. . .)

The problem I see a lot nowadays is that Christians look too much at the definition of words in a Lexicon when they should look at the usage of that word instead by looking at the context (or surrounding words). Most Christians believe “repent” always means a “change of mind” and that's it. Discussion over. But they really are not being a Good Berean with that word in how the Bible uses it. Let me give you an example.

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.” (1 Samuel 15:11).

“And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” (1 Samuel 15:29).

“And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 15:35).
​

Obviously the word “repenteth” in verse 11, and “repented” in verse 35 have an entirely different meaning than the double appearance of the words “repent” in verse 29.

Verse 11 makes the most sense if the word “grieved” is used for the word “repenteth.”
God was grieved that He had set up Saul as king. God could not have a “change of mind” or “regret” about this because that would suggest God does not know all things or that He makes mistakes and that is not possible.

In verse 29, God is not a man that he should “repent” is in referring to the word “regret.”
For it would not make sense to say that God has not changed His mind on certain things in the Bible.
For we learn in the story of Jonah that the Ninevites were to face judgment in 40 days, and yet that did not happen because the Ninevites cried out unto God and they forsaken their evil ways. When God had seen they forsaken their wickedness that is when God decided to no longer bring any judgment against them that He was going to originally bring upon them. So we see an example of God changing His mind in the story of Jonah. So repent in 1 Samuel 15:29 makes the most sense in light of the context as meaning: “regret.” God cannot regret any actions He takes because He is God and He cannot make mistakes. There is no regret with God in what He says, or does. God is perfect.

Here is my....

Biblical Case For Repentance:
(When it comes to humans repenting):

At the heart, I believe the Bible teaches that "Repentance" (for humans) means, "Asking God for forgiveness" (Which of course naturally then leads to the "fruits of repentance", i.e. obedience to the Lord) (Note: To seek forgiveness over one's sins means one has a form of regret over their sins that they did with God; Hence, why God is not a man that he can repent or regret like man can regret what he has done when he sins before God).

Important Note: While I may believe "Repentance" does involve to a certain degree a "change of mind" (like a person changing their mind about their old life of sin), I do not think "Repentance" exclusively means a “change of mind.”

"Asking God for forgiveness of sin" can either refer to: The "Sinner's Prayer" (Initial Salvation) (Romans 10:13), and or the seasoned believer "Confessing one's sin" (Continued Salvation) (See 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1).

Anyways, here are my ten points using Scripture showing that "repentance" means "asking God for forgiveness of sin.”

#1. Acts 2:38,
The New Living Translation says in Acts 2:38 to "repent of your sins."
Douay Reheims says in Acts 2:38 to "Do penance."
New Life Version says in Acts 2:38 to "Be sorry for your sins"

#2. Luke 17:3 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This doesn't make any sense if "repent" means believe in Jesus (as some teach) or to have a change of mind about sin (as others teach) or to exclusively forsake sin. Yes, we are to forsake sin as a part of repentance but that comes later after repentance (Which is to ask God for forgiveness of our sin). For how can we reconcile with a brother if we do not say we are sorry vs. just going on about life as if we did nothing wrong?

#3. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would be able to see in Jonah 3:6-10 that the King of the Ninevites had told his people to:

(a) Cry out to God (i.e. Repentance) (See Jonah 3:8).
(b) Turn from their sins or evil ways (i.e. The Natural Fruits of Repentance).
​

#4. Matthew 3:6 (which then lines up with Matthew 3:8). Also, in Mark 1:4-5, it says John preached the "baptism of repentance" for the remission of sins (verse 4), and it then defines this "baptism of repentance" by saying they confessed their sins when they were baptized (verse 5).

#5. We see in Acts of the Apostles 8:22 a clear example of Peter telling Simon to "repent" of his wickedness in trying to pay for the Holy Spirit. Peter is telling Simon to make a prayer towards God. For Peter says that he should pray that God might forgive him. In other words, Peter is telling Simon to repent of a one time event of wickedness by way of prayer to GOD. This only makes sense if "repent" means to "ask for forgiveness."

#6. Ezekiel 14:6 says,
"Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols;" Repent makes the most sense here if a person is asking God for forgiveness by way of prayer instead of a person just believing in God. Naturally a person believes in God as their Savior if they are planning on forsaking their idols.

#7. We see repentance is the topic of discussion in Luke 15 (Luke 15:6) (Luke 15:10); This is then followed up by the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" with the son desiring to be reconciled with his father. We learn the WAY the Prodigal Son desired to be reconciled with his father when he said,

"I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15:18-19).

In other words, the Prodigal Son was seeking forgiveness. This ties into the point of repentance in Luke 15:6 and Luke 15:10.

#8. Luke 10:13 says,
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." This rules out the theory that repentance is exclusively forsaking sin. Granted, forsaking sin always follow true repentance (Asking God for forgiveness of one's sins) but forsaking sin is not repentance. The word "repented" here is describing a one time event because they "repented", sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:6 we learn that the King of Nineveh sat in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:8, the King of Nineveh tells people to put on sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God (i.e. repentance): and then turn from their evil way (i.e. the fruits of repentance).

#9. John the Baptist says we are to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). Fruits are deeds (or obedience to God). How can repentance be the same thing as the fruit? Is the fruit the same thing as the tree?

#10. Jeremiah 8:6 says, "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." Here we see the word "repented of wickedness" tied with the words, "What have I done?" This is an acknowledgement of one's sin to God as a part of asking His forgiveness.
​

Notable Additional Verses that Deal with Repentance
(But They Do Not Use The Word "Repent" or "Repentance"):

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).

13 "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14).

Proverbs 28:13 says whosoever confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy.​

Anyways, I will address the next part of what you said in my next post to you because I don't want this post to be too long whereby you and or others would be discouraged in reading it.

 

[Clare73]

The problem I see a lot nowadays is that Christians look too much at the definition of words in a Lexicon when they should look at the usage of that word instead by looking at the context (or surrounding words). Most Christians believe “repent” always means a “change of mind” and that's it. Discussion over. But they really are not being a Good Berean with that word in how the Bible uses it. Let me give you an example.

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.” (1 Sameuel 15:11).

“And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.” (1 Samuel 15:29).

“And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 15:35).
​

Obviously the word “repenteth” in verse 11, and “repented” in verse 35 have an entirely different meaning than the double appearance of the words “repent” in verse 29.

In all three cases, a "change of mind" was involved.​

Verse 11 makes the most sense if the word “grieved” is used for the word “repenteth.”
God was grieved that He had set up Saul as king. God could not have a “change of mind” or “regret” about what this because that would suggest God does not know all things or that He makes mistakes and that is not possible.

In verse 29, God is not a man that he should “repent” is in referring to the word “regret.”
For it would not make sense to say that God has not changed His mind on certain things in the Bible.
For we learn in the story of Jonah that the Ninevites were to face judgment in 40 days, and yet that did not happen because the Ninevites cried out unto God and they forsaken their evil ways. When God had seen they forsaken their wickedness that is when God decided to no longer bring any judgment against them that He was going to originally bring upon them. So we see an example of God changing His mind in the story of Jonah. So repent in 1 Samuel 15:29 makes the most sense in light of the context as meaning: “regret.” God cannot regret any actions He takes because He is God and He cannot make mistakes. There is no regret with God in what He says, or does. God is perfect.

Here is my....Biblical Case For Repentance:
(When it comes to humans repenting):
At the heart, I believe the Bible teaches that "Repentance" (for humans) means, "Asking God for forgiveness" (Which of course naturally then leads to the "fruits of repentance", i.e. obedience to the Lord) (Note: To seek forgiveness over one's sins means one has a form of regret over their sins that they did with God; Hence, why God is not a man that he can repent or regret like man can regret what he has done when he sins before God).

Important Note: While I may believe "Repentance" does involve to a certain degree a "change of mind" (like a person changing their mind about their old life of sin), I do not think "Repentance" exclusively means a “change of mind.”

"Asking God for forgiveness of sin" can either refer to: The "Sinner's Prayer" (Initial Salvation) (Romans 10:13), and or the seasoned believer "Confessing one's sin" (Continued Salvation) (See 1 John 1:9, 1 John 2:1).

Anyways, here are my ten points using Scripture showing that "repentance" means "asking God for forgiveness of sin.”

#1. Acts 2:38,
The New Living Translation says in Acts 2:38 to "repent of your sins."
Douay Reheims says in Acts 2:38 to "Do penance."
New Life Version says in Acts 2:38 to "Be sorry for your sins"

#2. Luke 17:3 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." This doesn't make any sense if "repent" means believe in Jesus (as some teach) or to have a change of mind about sin (as others teach) or to exclusively forsake sin. Yes, we are to forsake sin as a part of repentance but that comes later after repentance (Which is to ask God for forgiveness of our sin). For how can we reconcile with a brother if we do not say we are sorry vs. just going on about life as if we did nothing wrong?

#3. Jesus said in Matthew 12:41 that the Ninevites will rise up in Judgment against this generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. If you were to turn to Jonah chapter 3, you would be able to see in Jonah 3:6-10 that the King of the Ninevites had told his people to:

(a) Cry out to God (i.e. Repentance) (See Jonah 3:8).
(b) Turn from their sins or evil ways (i.e. The Natural Fruits of Repentance).
​

#4. Matthew 3:6 (which then lines up with Matthew 3:8). Also, in Mark 1:4-5, it says John preached the "baptism of repentance" for the remission of sins (verse 4), and it then defines this "baptism of repentance" by saying they confessed their sins when they were baptized (verse 5).

#5. We see in Acts of the Apostles 8:22 a clear example of Peter telling Simon to "repent" of his wickedness in trying to pay for the Holy Spirit. Peter is telling Simon to make a prayer towards God. For Peter says that he should pray that God might forgive him. In other words, Peter is telling Simon to repent of a one time event of wickedness by way of prayer to GOD. This only makes sense if "repent" means to "ask for forgiveness."

#6. Ezekiel 14:6 says,
"Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols;" Repent makes the most sense here if a person is asking God for forgiveness by way of prayer instead of a person just believing in God. Naturally a person believes in God as their Savior if they are planning on forsaking their idols.

#7. We see repentance is the topic of discussion in Luke 15 (Luke 15:6) (Luke 15:10); This is then followed up by the "Parable of the Prodigal Son" with the son desiring to be reconciled with his father. We learn the WAY the Prodigal Son desired to be reconciled with his father when he said,

"I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15:18-19).

In other words, the Prodigal Son was seeking forgiveness. This ties into the point of repentance in Luke 15:6 and Luke 15:10.

#8. Luke 10:13 says,
"Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes." This rules out the theory that repentance is exclusively forsaking sin. Granted, forsaking sin always follow true repentance (Asking God for forgiveness of one's sins) but forsaking sin is not repentance. The word "repented" here is describing a one time event because they "repented", sitting in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:6 we learn that the King of Nineveh sat in sackcloth and ashes. In Jonah 3:8, the King of Nineveh tells people to put on sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God (i.e. repentance): and then turn from their evil way (i.e. the fruits of repentance).

#9. John the Baptist says we are to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Luke 3:8). Fruits are deeds (or obedience to God). How can repentance be the same thing as the fruit? Is the fruit the same thing as the tree?

#10. Jeremiah 8:6 says, "I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle." Here we see the word "repented of wickedness" tied with the words, "What have I done?" This is an acknowledgement of one's sin to God as a part of asking His forgiveness.​

Notable Additional Verses that Deal with Repentance
(But They Do Not Use The Word "Repent" or "Repentance"):

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13).

13 "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (Luke 18:13-14).

Proverbs 28:13 says whosoever confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy.​

I have no quarrel with the word and its definition used by the God-breathed Scriptures of the NT in the Greek, and that's what I'm going with.
I look to them to instruct me, not me to instruct them.​

Anyways, I will address the next
part of what you said in my next post to you because I don't want this post to be too long whereby you and or others would be discouraged in reading it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

On what authority do you change the grammar of the text to give the text your personal meaning rather than the stated grammar of the text?

And the Good News Translation is not what the Greek states.
On what authority do you change
the grammar of the Greek text: "perhaps God may give them repentance"
to the grammar: perhaps God may give them the opportunity to repent,
which grammatically is not the same meaning at all?
​

All this rewriting of the God-breathed Scriptures to fit one's personal theology is so tiring.

I believe the King James is the divinely inspired Word of God, but I also recognize that it does not speak Modern English but it speaks in 1600's English (Which can be confusing to many if they are not careful to read the context, Modern Translations, and to do keyword searches in how those words are used elsewhere).

May I suggest watching this short video in defense of the Non-Calvinistic interpretation on 2 Timothy 2:25.

Please take note that I may not believe everything the author of this video says or teaches. I merely agree with him in regards to the point he is making in the video.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In all three cases, a "change of mind" was involved.​

I have no quarrel with the word and its definition used by the God-breathed Scriptures of the NT in the Greek, and that's what I'm going with.
I look to them to instruct me, not me to instruct them.​

I believe any Berean would see how my point on repentance in 1 Samuel 15 is clear. I can only point out the truth of God's Word to a person in what it says. But it is up to the reader to accept what it says if they are not oppossed to that truth.

In any case, let God's love shine upon you today (even if we disagree).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To address 2 Timothy 2:25 some more
(from a non-Calvinistic interpretation):

Well, if you were to look at the Greek word (δίδωμι) (didōmi) (Strong's G1325) for the English word “give” in 2 Timothy 2:25, we know that this same Greek word is used for the English words “to offer” in Luke 2:24.

Source:
Blue Letter Bible - G1325

This is confirmed even in WordNet's Dictionary at Webster's Online.
The word “give” can mean, “offer in good faith” (or in short, “to offer”).

Source:
Give | Definition of Give by Webster's Online Dictionary

Peradventure means “By chance” according to Webster's Dictionary:

Source:
Peradventure | Definition of Peradventure by Webster's Online Dictionary

Most of us will agree that the word “meekness” can mean “gentleness.”

So taking all these facts into account.

2 Timothy 2:25 KJB can say,

“In meekness [gentleness] instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure [by chance] will give [will offer] them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Timothy 2:25 KJB).​

So 2 Timothy 2:25 is saying that we are to be gentle with those who oppose themselves so that God might offer them a chance at repentance to the acknowledging of the truth. This is why other translations like the GNT say, “...God will give them the opportunity to repent and come to know the truth.”

Side Note:

Please keep in mind that the blue words in brackets above in the above verse (2 Timothy 2:25) is my commentary to the text. But it is my deep conviction that my commentary taken from dictionaries helps to erase any confusion (Especially if one is erroneously looking at Scripture through a Calvinistic lens).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What is interesting is that the Webster's 1913 dictionary defines the word “peradventure” as: “By chance.”

If we were to look at the word “opportunity” at the Webster's 1913 Dictionary, we would see that it can be defined as: “chance.”

So if we were to read 2 Timothy 2:25 with this definition in mind (along with the other definitions) I mentioned in my previous post, 2 Timothy 2:25 could be read like this:

“In meekness [gentleness] instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure [by chance or opportunity] will give [will offer] them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (2 Timothy 2:25).

This aligns then perfectly with what the GNT translation says on 2 Timothy 2:25.

Side Note:

Again, the words in blue in brackets above for 2 Timothy 2:25 is my commentary to the text.

May God bless you all and I hope that I what I said here blesses someone today.

 

[childeye 2]

But this reality is true for others as we read in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 (Which is a verse that many Christians today do not accept).

“And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10).

They let their own thoughts rule over what this above verse plainly says.

While it may be as you say, "They let their own thoughts rule over what this above verse clearly says", it also may be there is a misunderstanding. Otherwise I agree the scripture clearly says that there are those that do not receive the love of the Truth.

I am not comfortable equating that action of not receiving the love of the Truth with coming from a freewill anymore than I am comfortable with equating receiving the love of the Truth as coming from a freewill. To me these are two distinct wills only because they see things differently.

The scripture describing the mystery of iniquity at work shows severe consequences for those who more than likely had ample opportunity to receive the Truth, but I would guess they were too prideful.

Also, you are not dealing with the concept of God judging men. A judgment of men by God does not make any sense if they had no control over their own actions. That would like kicking a dog who has an uncontrollable pooping problem because it was sick when the master could simply just take the animal to the vet to get it treated instead.

Regardless of the fact that I currently control my fingers and legs and their actions according to my discretion, it's still a different issue to believe I am in full control of my moral/immoral disposition according to my discretion. Heck just needing a nap can change my attitude. Ironically, I am dealing with His judgment of me even when I judge others as pertains to mercy. Even Christ said that the sick need a doctor, and of course there are probably those that refuse to admit that they or anyone else needs any healing at all.

Unbelieving men are without excuse of the existence of God (Which would even include believing in His eternal Godhead, i.e. His triune nature) (See: Romans 1:18-23). There are also plenty of examples of free will involving initial salvation, as well.

It depends on how 'free' in front of 'will' is qualified and the context in which it is applied. To quote scripture, to be free from righteousness is to be a servant to sin, and to be free from sin is to be a servant of righteousness. There are two opposing types of freedom being described there. This indicates that there are higher powers that we are forced to react to because they precede us in existence and that ultimately we will serve one or the other unto our detriment and the detriment of others, or for our benefit and the benefit of others.

The context of Romans 1 referencing God's wrath is about a time before mankind had become utterly sinful, and how God's wrath was justified. In this context the presence of culpability is clear since the scenario is one where men knew God had made them, and yet they took the glory for their righteous attributes unto themselves when they were rightly Gods', and so this is uncontested. For by doing so men changed the incorruptible image of God and worshipped the creature over the Creator and became corrupt and foolish within themselves. I don't think mankind knew this would be the result.

However in the context of having been given over to a reprobate mind, one cannot expect such a mind to know God or acknowledge Him. Nonetheless, admitting that we all have taken God's attributes for granted in some measure of un-thankfulness also leaves us no excuse for condemning others since we do the same, which is also stated in Romans 2:1.

“And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Revelation 22:17).

The Spirit and the bride of Christ are calling the reader to come and to take of the water of life FREELY. So this water is free and not coherced upon the individual in any way. It also says, WHOSOEVER WILL. This means that God is not forcing anyone to believe here. It is WHOSOEVER WILL, let him take of the water of life FREELY (and not under compulsion because they are mind wiped to worship God beyond their own free will).

Respectfully, the phrase "those who thirst" is not representative of a will that is free from the compulsion or realization of the need to drink so as to live. And the term translated "freely", implies that it is the water that is freely given and that no one who thirsts should be denied, for it is to be counted as a gift that comes by grace and therefore cannot be earned or deserved.

This is non-sense. God is going to judge the wicked and condemn them.

It's not my place to say definitively how God will judge the wicked. According to scripture, we all have already been condemned as wicked through the works of the law. Currently in my mind, I would think that the wicked and unrighteous are more prone to condemn others rather than forgive, and the just and righteous are prone to forgive others rather than condemn.

I think Calvinism is a lack of not wanting to take responsiblity.

The issue is most likely a misunderstanding caused by the occasion of semantics.
You probably want people to take God's wrath and judgment more seriously, and they don't want to believe it's the fear of His wrath and judgment that is the reason for being good or obedient or the impetus for remorse.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Some Calvinists will claim that God grants repentance in the sense that God enables a person to be able to repent. Lets read the verses (that they think teaches that).

2 Timothy 2:24-26

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.​

Acts of the Apostles 5:30-31:

“‘The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.’”​

Acts of the Apostles 11:17-18:

“‘Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?’ When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, ‘Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.’”​

However, the simple meaning of God granting repentance is God giving the opportunity to be saved, for both Jews and Gentiles alike. However, when Calvinists read “grant them repentance,” they see “Irresistible Grace,” and for secretly elect Jews and secretly elect Gentiles. But this is simply not the case. It's merely God giving men opportunities or chances to repent.

The Good News Translation says in 2 Timothy 2,

“who is gentle as you correct your opponents,
for it may be that God will give them the opportunity to repent
and come to know the truth.”
(2 Timothy 2:25) (GNT).​

Also see: Jonah 4:11; Philippians 1:29; Acts 11:18.

Source:
Examining Calvinism

Sorry but there is no “ opportunity “ in the Greek. You are adding to scripture to support your false teaching . Shame on you .

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sorry but there is no “ opportunity “ in the Greek. You are adding to scripture to support your false teaching . Shame on you .

Let's face it. You are a Calvinist, and so you must read the verse through a Calvinistic lens. I do not have any such hinderance when I read Scripture. I am just following what original Greek word says in other verses, looking at older dictionaries, looking at the context, looking at the whole counsel of God's Word and looking at what Modern Translations say and seeing if it fits the KJB.

Besides, the King James Bible in the New Testament translates from the Greek into English, the word “opportunity.”

47 translators worked on the King James Bible (Which was the Bible used for hundreds of years long before the Modern Translations showed up). I think they knew more about Koine Greek than you, my friend. But we can agree to disagree in love (of course).

Anyways, please be well in the Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

While it may be as you say, "They let their own thoughts rule over what this above verse clearly says", it also may be there is a misunderstanding. Otherwise I agree the scripture clearly says that there are those that do not receive the love of the Truth.

I am not comfortable equating that action of not receiving the love of the Truth with coming from a freewill anymore than I am comfortable with equating receiving the love of the Truth as coming from a freewill. To me these are two distinct wills only because they see things differently.

The scripture describing the mystery of iniquity at work shows severe consequences for those who more than likely had ample opportunity to receive the Truth, but I would guess they were too prideful.


Regardless of the fact that I currently control my fingers and legs and their actions according to my discretion, it's still a different issue to believe I am in full control of my moral/immoral disposition according to my discretion. Heck just needing a nap can change my attitude. Ironically, I am dealing with His judgment of me even when I judge others as pertains to mercy. Even Christ said that the sick need a doctor, and of course there are probably those that refuse to admit that they or anyone else needs any healing at all.

It depends on how 'free' in front of 'will' is qualified and the context in which it is applied. To quote scripture, to be free from righteousness is to be a servant to sin, and to be free from sin is to be a servant of righteousness. There are two opposing types of freedom being described there. This indicates that there are higher powers that we are forced to react to because they precede us in existence and that ultimately we will serve one or the other unto our detriment and the detriment of others, or for our benefit and the benefit of others.

The context of Romans 1 referencing God's wrath is about a time before mankind had become utterly sinful, and how God's wrath was justified. In this context the presence of culpability is clear since the scenario is one where men knew God had made them, and yet they took the glory for their righteous attributes unto themselves when they were rightly Gods', and so this is uncontested. For by doing so men changed the incorruptible image of God and worshipped the creature over the Creator and became corrupt and foolish within themselves. I don't think mankind knew this would be the result.

However in the context of having been given over to a reprobate mind, one cannot expect such a mind to know God or acknowledge Him. Nonetheless, admitting that we all have taken God's attributes for granted in some measure of un-thankfulness also leaves us no excuse for condemning others since we do the same, which is also stated in Romans 2:1.


Respectfully, the phrase "those who thirst" is not representative of a will that is free from the compulsion or realization of the need to drink so as to live. And the term translated "freely", implies that it is the water that is freely given and that no one who thirsts should be denied, for it is to be counted as a gift that comes by grace and therefore cannot be earned or deserved.


It's not my place to say definitively how God will judge the wicked. According to scripture, we all have already been condemned as wicked through the works of the law. Currently in my mind, I would think that the wicked and unrighteous are more prone to condemn others rather than forgive, and the just and righteous are prone to forgive others rather than condemn.

It sounds like you are fighting with what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says. You want to agree with it, but it appears you hold to some form of Calvinism. Do you believe in Unconditional Election?
You quoted Paul in Romans 6:20 about how the Roman believers were free from righteousness when they were servants of sin. The King James (KJB) says servants and not slaves. So I think you are seeing something here that you want to see to defend Calvinism. Even if it was referring to being a slave, the idea of a slave back in biblical times did not always mean chatel slavery as most people think of today.

Side Note: While I may use Modern Translations at times, I side with the KJB as my final Word of authority because of the many problems in Modern Translations.

The issue is most likely a misunderstanding caused by the occasion of semantics.
You probably want people to take God's wrath and judgment more seriously, and they don't want to believe it's the fear of His wrath and judgment that is the reason for being good or obedient or the impetus for remorse.

There is no misunderstanding on my part on what Calvinism teaches. It's not a new thing for me. Yes, there are different flavors of Calvinism but Calvinism at the heart is a form of determinism (that attacks the good character of our God), and in many cases, over my many years of debating Calvinism, I have seen certain Calvinists push the idea that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Even John MacAthur's Lordship Salvation is a trojan horse because he also teaches you can commit serious sin, and still be saved on some level, too. So thus in many circles of Calvinism (I have encountered), there is no true fear God according to the Bible then if such is the case.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I'm not sure how you think any of those passages is contrary to God giving us faith.

1. God's command to us that we believe, is that we believe in Christ and love one another.
2. Everyone is commanded to repent. That hardly excludes God's gift of faith.
3. Faith does come by hearing the word--that's how God gives us faith.
4. Yes, that is the promise God gives His people, the ones who have faith in Him.
5. Doesn't exclude that God is the One who gives us faith.
6. It is impossible to please God without faith, and with faith we seek Him, without faith no one seeks after God.
7. And He is Himself the Author of their faith.

I would encourage you to ask yourself why it is so important to you that you be responsible for your salvation rather than trusting in the goodness and love of God which is in Christ Jesus for you.

-CryptoLutheran

I would encourage you to ask yourself why you are asking someone that question when there is scripture like the following that makes it quite clear that we have the responsibility to keep our faith in Christ in order to maintain our salvation:

Hebrews 3:12 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Romans 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

 

[childeye 2]

It sounds like you are fighting with what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says. You want to agree with it, but it appears you hold to some form of Calvinism. Do you believe in Unconditional Election?

With all due respect, if by some form of Calvinism, you really mean not wanting to take responsibility for my actions, that's a projection that is not without some degree of prejudice on your part.

With that in mind, if I take the phrase "unconditional election" at face value, I would say it implies that there is absolutely no condition upon which God bases His judgment of who will be saved. As I've said before, I believe a person has to have a Holy Image of God in their heart which is why I believe that the Christ is that True Image sent to believe in so as to be healed. That to me would count as a condition for being saved. I don't believe Calvin would disagree with that, and I suspect that you're not talking about that either.

So to cut to the chase of what I think you're really talking about. I believe that we all deserve God's wrath in some degree, but if God wants to show His wrath on some but not all, then He has mercy where He chooses to do so. If I were to say on what basis He will show His mercy, I think scripture indicates He will favor the poor, the weak and lowly. When I was naked you clothed me, when I was hungry you fed me, etc...,

You quoted Paul in Romans 6:20 about how the Roman believers were free from righteousness when they were servants of sin. The King James (KJB) says servants and not slaves. So I think you are seeing something here that you want to see to defend Calvinism. Even if it was referring to being a slave, the idea of a slave back in biblical times did not always mean chatel slavery as most people think of today.

Again another vague allusion to Calvinism (I suspect you mean not wanting to take responsibility for my actions). Paul is talking about an either/or circumstance of being a servant to righteousness or to sin. It's sound reasoning and it's a use of semantics discerning higher spiritual powers of Light/dark.

There is no misunderstanding on my part on what Calvinism teaches. It's not a new thing for me. Yes, there are different flavors of Calvinism but Calvinism at the heart is a form of determinism (that attacks the good character of our God), and in many cases, over my many years of debating Calvinism, I have seen certain Calvinists push the idea that they can sin and still be saved on some level. Even John MacAthur's Lordship Salvation is a trojan horse because he also teaches you can commit serious sin, and still be saved on some level, too. So thus in many circles of Calvinism (I have encountered), there is no true fear God according to the Bible then if such is the case.

4 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Well I'm not a Calvinist. But I do study semantics, particularly as applies to psycholinguistics.
Many people use freewill and determinism as a dichotomy in their reasoning. So if when they say 'freewill', the sentiment behind the term is actually, 'taking personal responsibility for your moral/immoral actions', then they naturally count 'freewill' as a positive and they want to believe in it. In such an instance, the mind then, by default, counts determinism as a negative meaning, 'not wanting to take responsibility for your actions'.

The study of semantics is how not all words carry the same meanings and positive/negative connotations and denotations, because they change due to various subjective views which may or may not be moral or immoral in themselves but rather circumstantial. For example if I credit God for the empathy that compels my moral actions, then determinism is a positive.

So why do people think determinism attacks the good nature of God? Because they feel it blames God for the bad things (sin) that happen in the world rather than laying the blame on mankind. There's no thought given to the idea that bad can happen as a matter of circumstance and be no one's fault.

The problem with freewill for people like me, is that I don't want to blame anyone. Why is that? Because placing blame will not fix the problem when I see the problem fundamentally as ignorance. The spirit that comes with seeking to find blame is not Godly in my view. Isn't it Love that causes me to care how my actions and inactions affect others? Isn't it Love that causes me to act responsibly? Isn't beating myself up over my error just another form of pride? To me, Christ was both Man and God and he took the blame upon his own flesh and suffered the grievances of us all so that sins would be forgiven, yet he was innocent.

I have a brother in law who adamantly believes in freewill and does not believe in determinism. He talks much the same as you do. I asked him if there are things that he has done to others that he sincerely regrets doing. He said yes. I asked him if he is truly sorry, and he said yes. I then pointed out that if he were truly sorry and not lying, then he would not will to do it again. He thought about that a bit and then agreed. So I said, then there's something you know now that had you known then, you would not have done it in the first place. There was silence.

I believe every sin and temptation to sin is preceded by believing something as true that was not true. And I believe that there is a spirit of the devil that is deceived and goes on deceiving.

 

[zoidar]

I don’t quite understand. There is several verses in romans that sounds a lot like predestination. There is also a ton of verses that talk about making the choice to follow Christ. I want to believe free will. The idea that God decides who is gonna follow Him and who He’s gonna throw in Hell I find disturbing. If you support predestination please explain the verses that speak about free will. Ex John 3:16. That’s just one of many. And if your for free will please explain the verses that sound like presentation. Ex Romans 9:21-23. Also I know about Armineaism but Romans 9:21-23 doesn’t sound like it’s based on our choices

If you got some time, like 2 hours you can watch this video by Leighton Flowers on Romans 9. A good way is listening while taking a walk.

 

[Davy]

I don’t quite understand. There is several verses in romans that sounds a lot like predestination. There is also a ton of verses that talk about making the choice to follow Christ. I want to believe free will. The idea that God decides who is gonna follow Him and who He’s gonna throw in Hell I find disturbing. If you support predestination please explain the verses that speak about free will. Ex John 3:16. That’s just one of many. And if your for free will please explain the verses that sound like presentation. Ex Romans 9:21-23. Also I know about Armineaism but Romans 9:21-23 doesn’t sound like it’s based on our choices

Study John 17 about Lord Jesus' prayer...

John 17:6
6 I have manifested Thy name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world: Thine they were, and Thou gavest them Me; and they have kept Thy word.
KJV

Lord Jesus was talking about His Apostles that were called and chosen. That is about ownership. The Father Who already owned them, gave them to Jesus for His Ministry. That is a revealing of predestination/election.


John 17:14
14 I have given them Thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
KJV

That also shows their predestination in Christ by The Father.


John 17:18-19
18 As Thou hast sent Me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
KJV

That idea of being "sent" is where the meaning of the Greek word for Apostle originates. That again shows the predestination of Christ's Apostles.


John 17:20-21
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on Me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.
KJV

Verse 20 Jesus reveals that He prays not only for His predestinated 'sent' ones (Apostles), but also those who shall believe on Him by their preaching of The Gospel. And the idea in final is that all of them together may become one in The Father and The Son (i.e., God's Church through Jesus Christ).

Did this predestination, or previous ownership by The LORD occur prior to Christ's 1st coming? Yes. Ways to notice this is how God contacted His servants in the Old Testament, like appearing to Abraham at his tent door in Genesis 18; and like how God ordained Jonah to go preach to the pagans at Nineveh. And when Jonah refused, and even tried to kill himself, God still intervened and made him go preach to them. That's a show of ownership of His elect.

Apostle Paul, or Saul, as he was called before Jesus converted him on the road to Damascus, was probably the strongest example of a predestinated chosen elect sent one. Before Lord Jesus converted Saul, he was a Pharisee working for the Jews to deliver Christians to Jerusalem for trial. That's what he was doing on the road to Damascus (Acts 9).

What this means is that God has 'some' that are called and... 'chosen', and He already 'owns' those. So that's how He can directly intervene in their lives, even forcing them to serve Him (like Jonah).

But those who are 'called' only, are like those who hear and believe through their preaching. For most of us that believe on Jesus, He will intervene when we ask and pray. But He won't force us to believe, nor keep us from deception if we choose to fall away. With His chosen elect, they cannot... stray, ever, for He already owns them, and He can directly intervene with them, and force them in His service. This is why in Matthew 24:24, the Scripture warns about the future pseudo-Christ, that would deceive, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, even His very elect. That means it is NOT... possible for the false Messiah to deceive them. But for others called only... this is why those like Apostle Paul spent a lot of time in His Epistles warning those of us that are called only, to not allow any man to deceive us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

With all due respect, if by some form of Calvinism, you really mean not wanting to take responsibility for my actions, that's a projection that is not without some degree of prejudice on your part.

If the Bible teaches against Unconditional Election and it teaches that after God reveals His grace to us by His Word, and we need to respond of our own free will as a part of accepting His grace (Which I believe it does) than the Calvinist is denying responsibility. For they are trying to give sole credit to God for something that He desires man to do. For if we are not responsible in accepting in His grace, and it is all God who mind wipes us to do so against our free will, then God is responsible for those who will be in Heaven, and those who will be in Hell, man's bad choices and sin really does not condemn anyone but it is God simply wanting man to be condemned as a part of His sovereign will. If you do not believe in Calvinism, then you need to explain why your posts appeared to lean in that direction strongly.

With that in mind, if I take the phrase "unconditional election" at face value, I would say it implies that there is absolutely no condition upon which God bases His judgment of who will be saved.

Which again, Unconditional Election is seriously unbiblical big time. Anyone who reads the Bible will not walk away thinking Unconditional Election unless they read only Romans 9 out of context.

Proof? Again, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Luke 13:3, Jonah 3. There is also Matthew 23:37, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, John 3:16, Romans 10:21, Romans 11:22, Hebrews 2:9, Acts of the Apostles 17:30, Romans 10:12-13.

Also, think about the judgment. The judgment of men makes no sense in the world of Calvinism because God is not really judging man for anything he did because he had no ability to choose otherwise. It would not be a judgment but it would only be a ruling of God telling us what He already chosen for everyone (Which does not make a lick of sense).

Then there is God getting upset at sin. Again, if Calvinism was true (Which it isn't) and God is the One who decides the fate of all men in regards to salvation and how they live, then God should never get upset at sin ever. For if men are saved no matter what they do, then why be upset if it is only a temporary blip on the radar in the grand scheme of eternity? Why get upset at sin if God can simply snap His fingers and make them to no longer sin and He can force His love and holy way of life upon a person?

If Calvinism was true, then Why does God give us commandments? It does not make any sense. God can just zap us to do His sovereign will. Sin is merely the breaking of God's commands. We are told in Ecclesiastes that to fear God and to keep His commandments is the whole duty of man. But do see many today wanting to obey God's commands? Or do you see men today justifying the idea that no man can keep God's commands? Does God's Word encourage us to keep His commands or does it discourage us like men in keeping His commands? See this why Calvinism is not true. The fact that it is God's sovereign will for believers to obey His commands and yet we hear of many teach today that we cannot keep them is proof that they are not following God's will (See: 1 John 2:3-4).

I've said before, I believe a person has to have a Holy Image of God in their heart which is why I believe that the Christ is that True Image sent to believe in so as to be healed. That to me would count as a condition for being saved. I don't believe Calvin would disagree with that, and I suspect that you're not talking about that either.

Some make it all about Belief Alone-ism and justifying sin on some level, and others make it all about Works Alone-ism without God's grace. Both are extreme errors. Believers need to have a healthy balance of both Grace and Sanctification as a part of God's plan of salvation.

#1. God's Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior
(Initial Salvation, and or Foundational Salvation).
(The 1st synergistic work of GOD done in a believer).
Being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus as ones Savior is the entrance gate to salvation, and it is the foundation of our salvation (by faith) upon which we stand. Being saved by God's grace is believing the gospel (Which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it - Romans 1:16). According to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: The gospel is you believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He had risen again three days later for your salvation (Note: Do not let anyone sell you on another gospel besides this one). Depending on a person’s access or exposure to the Word: Being saved by God's grace will also generally include receiving Jesus as your Savior (John 1:12), and calling upon the name of the Lord (i.e. confessing with your mouth the words: “Lord Jesus” or similar equivalent - Romans 10:9) as a part of seeking forgiveness of your sins with Him by way of prayer (Romans 10:13) (Luke 15:18-21) (Luke 18:9-14). This process of salvation is without the deeds of the Law or works because it is based upon God’s mercy and grace and His redemptive work. As a result: One is born again spiritually (Note: Born again by the Spirit, and born again by water (i.e. the Scriptures - Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 1:23)). A person is foundationally or ultimately saved by God’s grace because if they happen to sin on rare occasion in their Christian walk, they do not do a good work to absolve that sin, but they confess of their sins to Jesus in order to be forgiven of that sin (1 John 1:9) (1 John 2:1) (Hebrews 4:16) (For verses on being saved by God's grace, see: Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-6, Titus 3:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 18:9-14, Romans 5:1-2).

#2. Sanctification of the Spirit to Live a Holy Life
(The Next Step or Phase in the Salvation Process).
(The 2nd synergistic work of God done in a believer).
Sanctification of the Spirit to Live a Holy Life is the next step or phase in Salvation for a believer who lives out their faith; This is the work of God moving in a believer's life so as to help them to live holy, and to do good works and to put away the lusts of the flesh. These good works are the works of God done through the believer, and so all boasting or praise is given to the Lord. Therefore, there is no boasting in one's own work because they are ultimately the works of God done through the believer. A believer today who obeys the Lord looks to the commands of Jesus and His followers within the New Testament primarily. For believers today are not under the 613 Laws of Moses as a whole package deal (even though certain laws have carried over into the New Testament). Basically all ceremonial laws and judicial laws in the Old Testament no longer apply. For example: Believers do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifices, holy days, etc.; However, believers must keep God's Moral Laws like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, do not lie, do commit adultery, etc.; Two of the greatest commands that we should focus on daily is to love God and love our neighbor which is more fully described in Mark 12:29-31. We need to worship or adore the Lord our God, preach the gospel, help the poor, love the brethren, love our enemies, and live holy lives, etc. (For Sanctification verses, see: James 2:24, James 2:17-18, Titus 1:16, Hebrews 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 12:14, Romans 8:1 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:22, Romans 8:13, etc.).

 

[childeye 2]

[error

 

[Fervent]

Before confronting the issue of free will, the fall of man must be dealt with. If the proposition that is so prevalent among protestants is accepted that man is completely unable to respond to the gospel in faith, then the only "free will" possible is the will to sin and salvation can only be based on some sort of divine lottery.

So the question is, what's your view on the fall of man? Rescue that, and there is no need for systems that disparage a free will response.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

If the Bible teaches against Unconditional Election and it teaches that after God reveals His grace to us by His Word, and we need to respond of our own free will as a part of accepting His grace (Which I believe it does) than the Calvinist is denying responsibility. For they are trying to give sole credit to God for something that He desires man to do. For if we are not responsible in accepting in His grace, and it is all God who mind wipes us to do so against our free will, then God is responsible for those who will be in Heaven, and those who will be in Hell, man's bad choices and sin really does not condemn anyone but it is God simply wanting man to be condemned as a part of His sovereign will. If you do not believe in Calvinism, then you need to explain why your posts appeared to lean in that direction strongly.



Which again, Unconditional Election is seriously unbiblical big time. Anyone who reads the Bible will not walk away thinking Unconditional Election unless they read only Romans 9 out of context.

Proof? Again, 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Luke 13:3, Jonah 3. There is also Matthew 23:37, 2 Peter 2:1, 1 John 2:2, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, John 3:16, Romans 10:21, Romans 11:22, Hebrews 2:9, Acts of the Apostles 17:30, Romans 10:12-13.

Also, think about the judgment. The judgment of men makes no sense in the world of Calvinism because God is not really judging man for anything he did because he had no ability to choose otherwise. It would not be a judgment but it would only be a ruling of God telling us what He already chosen for everyone (Which does not make a lick of sense).

Then there is God getting upset at sin. Again, if Calvinism was true (Which it isn't) and God is the One who decides the fate of all men in regards to salvation and how they live, then God should never get upset at sin ever. For if men are saved no matter what they do, then why be upset if it is only a temporary blip on the radar in the grand scheme of eternity? Why get upset at sin if God can simply snap His fingers and make them to no longer sin and He can force His love and holy way of life upon a person?

If Calvinism was true, then Why does God give us commandments? It does not make any sense. God can just zap us to do His sovereign will. Sin is merely the breaking of God's commands. We are told in Ecclesiastes that to fear God and to keep His commandments is the whole duty of man. But do see many today wanting to obey God's commands? Or do you see men today justifying the idea that no man can keep God's commands? Does God's Word encourage us to keep His commands or does it discourage us like men in keeping His commands? See this why Calvinism is not true. The fact that it is God's sovereign will for believers to obey His commands and yet we hear of many teach today that we cannot keep them is proof that they are not following God's will (See: 1 John 2:3-4).



Some make it all about Belief Alone-ism and justifying sin on some level, and others make it all about Works Alone-ism without God's grace. Both are extreme errors. Believers need to have a healthy balance of both Grace and Sanctification as a part of God's plan of salvation.

#1. God's Grace Through Faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior
(Initial Salvation, and or Foundational Salvation).
(The 1st synergistic work of GOD done in a believer).
Being saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus as ones Savior is the entrance gate to salvation, and it is the foundation of our salvation (by faith) upon which we stand. Being saved by God's grace is believing the gospel (Which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes it - Romans 1:16). According to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4: The gospel is you believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins, He was buried, and He had risen again three days later for your salvation (Note: Do not let anyone sell you on another gospel besides this one). Depending on a person’s access or exposure to the Word: Being saved by God's grace will also generally include receiving Jesus as your Savior (John 1:12), and calling upon the name of the Lord (i.e. confessing with your mouth the words: “Lord Jesus” or similar equivalent - Romans 10:9) as a part of seeking forgiveness of your sins with Him by way of prayer (Romans 10:13) (Luke 15:18-21) (Luke 18:9-14). This process of salvation is without the deeds of the Law or works because it is based upon God’s mercy and grace and His redemptive work. As a result: One is born again spiritually (Note: Born again by the Spirit, and born again by water (i.e. the Scriptures - Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 1:23)). A person is foundationally or ultimately saved by God’s grace because if they happen to sin on rare occasion in their Christian walk, they do not do a good work to absolve that sin, but they confess of their sins to Jesus in order to be forgiven of that sin (1 John 1:9) (1 John 2:1) (Hebrews 4:16) (For verses on being saved by God's grace, see: Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:1-6, Titus 3:4-7, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 18:9-14, Romans 5:1-2).

#2. Sanctification of the Spirit to Live a Holy Life
(The Next Step or Phase in the Salvation Process).
(The 2nd synergistic work of God done in a believer).
Sanctification of the Spirit to Live a Holy Life is the next step or phase in Salvation for a believer who lives out their faith; This is the work of God moving in a believer's life so as to help them to live holy, and to do good works and to put away the lusts of the flesh. These good works are the works of God done through the believer, and so all boasting or praise is given to the Lord. Therefore, there is no boasting in one's own work because they are ultimately the works of God done through the believer. A believer today who obeys the Lord looks to the commands of Jesus and His followers within the New Testament primarily. For believers today are not under the 613 Laws of Moses as a whole package deal (even though certain laws have carried over into the New Testament). Basically all ceremonial laws and judicial laws in the Old Testament no longer apply. For example: Believers do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifices, holy days, etc.; However, believers must keep God's Moral Laws like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, do not lie, do commit adultery, etc.; Two of the greatest commands that we should focus on daily is to love God and love our neighbor which is more fully described in Mark 12:29-31. We need to worship or adore the Lord our God, preach the gospel, help the poor, love the brethren, love our enemies, and live holy lives, etc. (For Sanctification verses, see: James 2:24, James 2:17-18, Titus 1:16, Hebrews 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 12:14, Romans 8:1 (KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:22, Romans 8:13, etc.).

You sound more like a pelagian the way you attack calvinists. I know many Arminians who are more gracious than you have demonstrated so I do not think you are an Arminian. Is that correct ?

Do you deny original sin ?

 

[fhansen]

I don’t quite understand. There is several verses in romans that sounds a lot like predestination. There is also a ton of verses that talk about making the choice to follow Christ. I want to believe free will. The idea that God decides who is gonna follow Him and who He’s gonna throw in Hell I find disturbing. If you support predestination please explain the verses that speak about free will. Ex John 3:16. That’s just one of many. And if your for free will please explain the verses that sound like presentation. Ex Romans 9:21-23. Also I know about Armineaism but Romans 9:21-23 doesn’t sound like it’s based on our choices

The ancient churches qualify the biblical concept of election and predestination. God “predestines” based on His foreknowledge of our choices (which isn’t really foreknowledge at all to Him since He exists outside of time, knowing all things in their “immediacy” as it were).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You sound more like a pelagian the way you attack calvinists.

More like I attack the belief (Calvinism), and not the individuals (Calvinists). I have mentioned John MacArthur, but this was an attack against his wrong unbiblical beliefs that go against the Bible, and I was not solely attacking him as a person or individual (For example: Like the way he may speak, dress, walk, etc.).

As for Pelagianism: No, I do not believe in Pelagianism (Which denies Orignal Sin or that we have a sin nature as a part of Adam). But the thing is that Jesus reversed the curse of Adam whereby His atoning sacrifice for the world can now save aborted babies, and whereby He can help a believer saved by His grace to overcome grievous sin that comes from the sin nature of Adam. For if Jesus never went to the cross, even babies would be condemned.

I know many Arminians who are more gracious than you have demonstrated so I do not think you are an Arminian. Is that correct ?

I lean more towards Arminianism.

Here are the Original 5 Articles (or Points) of Traditional Arminianism:

1. Conditional Election.
2. Unlimited Atonement.
3. Total Depravity.
4. Prevenient Grace.
5. Conditional Preservation of the Saints.

Five Articles of Remonstrance - Wikipedia

Here are my five points that I hold to.

#1. Conditional Election (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#2. Conditional Salvation.
#3. Unrestricted Initial Drawing(s) & Illumination(s) by God For Majority; A.K.A. Free Will Involving One’s Choice Towards the Lord, Grace, or Salvation (Note: Christ draws all men unto Himself, and God is not willing that any should perish.) (Note: All men are given an opportunity or opportunities by God to understand the "Offer of the Love of the Truth" so that they are able to receive it, or reject it of their own free will. - See: 2 Thessalonians 2:10.).
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).
#5. Partial Depravity.
​

I also rearranged the Arminian influenced points on my list above to spell CCUPP.

Do you deny original sin ?

Well, in the Calvinistic sense... ”yes” because they hold to Total Depravity as a part of Adam's sin. In the Biblical sense... “no” because I believe the Bible teaches “Partial Depravity.” For we see nowhere in Scripture whereby man is so depraved that God does not blame man for his own actions. For if a dog who is sick poops on the master's carpets it is not the dog's fault because it has an uncontrollable pooping problem. So it would be cruel of the master to kick the dog across the room like a football every time the poor animal poops.