Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
They are one and the same. I have no hope but in Christ.
But I hope that you can understand, that my pleasure, my enjoyment, and my anticipation in Christ, is in the sure knowledge that God is pleased with the work of his hands, i.e. in all he has decreed. Whether or not I "make it there" is a very far secondary question. More dear to me even than the fact of finally being pure, and for the righteousness* with which I will be filled, is the simple thought of finally seeing his face.
*The Matthew reference (Mat 5:3; 5:6) concerns what I know is 'part and parcel' with seeing his face, and I don't deny that; but it still is separate to a large degree in my thoughts. The yearning to see the face of God, the joy at seeing his happiness, overrides my concerns for self-safety/ eternal security. I no longer dwell on thanksgiving to God for rescuing me from certain eternal death; I dwell on who he is. (This difference is also another thing that results from his work in me, and not by any decision I made. Just saying.) Many posters on this site have alluded to this with such things as "When I do what is right, I find that it was not me, but God who did it in me." and, "When I do what is wrong, it is no longer the fear of hell that grips me, but the great sadness, even mourning, at what I have done to God" (and to me, even the horror of the stain I have made, the wound I have inflicted on God's Creation).
I also love the fact that we depend on God's mercy -which is part of His grace.
But in the reformed study of God, it would seem that God has no mercy since He does not give to all the same opportunity of salvation.
Which brings up His justice.
Is He just or not?
A just God would give to each AS HE DESERVES.
We all deserve hell, but God, in His mercy and justice, has given us a way out.
John 3.16 Prescriptive NOT descriptive.
And Jesus gave the Great Commission to the Apostles because HE taught them the truth, which they were to pass on. The ideas Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc had did not come about till the 1,500's.
This must surely tell us something.
Nobody has any excuse. That much is for sure. And that none of us deserve his mercy, is also for sure.I find joy in knowing Christ gave up his life as a ransom sacrifice for every human being on this planet. No love can be compared to such a love. I find joy and thankfulness that God accepted me, forgave me and cleansed me from all sin, when I came to him as poor beggar, and had nothing more to offer than myself.
Per the above, Calvinist reasoning always requires a lengthy argument with multiple questionable scripture interpretations and/or philosophy. Hear me - that is your red flag. We are in the NT where all the important mysteries have been revealed (Ephesians 3:1-13): If a broad category of truth is important to God, expect it to be clearly stated in the NT. For example, the truth in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 clearly states that God desires all to be saved and that Christ paid the ransom for all men - that truth is enough to eliminate Calvinist determinism in straight thinkers who value scripture. Again think straight.Good Day, John
Does God create in the womb people that he knows will perish?
Why?
Do they serve a purpose for God?
Posting chapter heading and section in the whole:
REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED. This chapter consists of four parts, which refute the principal objections to this doctrine, and the various pleas and exceptions founded on these objections. These are preceded by a refutation of those who hold election but deny reprobation, sec. 1. Then follows, I. A refutation of the first objection to the doctrine of reprobation and election, sec. 2-5. II. An answer to the second objection, sec. 6-9. III. A refutation of the third objection. IV. A refutation of the fourth objection; to which is added a useful and necessary caution, sec. 12-14.
Section 6 - Objection, that God ought not to impute the sins rendered necessary by his predestination. First answer, by ancient writers. This not valid. Second answer also defective. Third answer, proposed by Valla, well founded.
6. Impiety starts another objection, which, however, seeks not so much to criminate God as to
excuse the sinner; though he who is condemned by God as a sinner cannot ultimately be acquitted
without impugning the judge. This, then is the scoffing language which profane tongues employ.
Why should God blame men for things the necessity of which he has imposed by his own
predestination? What could they do? Could they struggle with his decrees? It were in vain for them
to do it, since they could not possibly succeed. It is not just, therefore, to punish them for things
the principal cause of which is in the predestination of God. Here I will abstain from a defense to
which ecclesiastical writers usually recur, that there is nothing in the prescience of God to prevent
him from regarding; man as a sinner, since the evils which he foresees are man’s, not his. This
would not stop the caviler, who would still insist that God might, if he had pleased, have prevented
the evils which he foresaw, and not having done so, must with determinate counsel have created
man for the very purpose of so acting on the earth.
But if by the providence of God man was created on the condition of afterwards doing whatever he
does, then that which he cannot escape, and which
he is constrained by the will of God to do, cannot be charged upon him as a crime. Let us, therefore,
see what is the proper method of solving the difficulty. First, all must admit what Solomon says,
“The Lord has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil,” (Prov. 16:4).
Now, since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal
of life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in such a way that individuals are
born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.
If any one alleges that no necessity is laid upon them by the providence of God, but rather that they
are created by him in that condition, because he foresaw their future depravity, he says something,
but does not say enough. Ancient writers, indeed, occasionally employ this solution, though with
some degree of hesitation. The Schoolmen, again, rest in it as if it could not be gainsaid. I, for my
part, am willing to admit, that mere prescience lays no necessity on the creatures; though some do
not assent to this, but hold that it is itself the cause of things. But Valla, though otherwise not greatly
skilled in sacred matters, seems to me to have taken a shrewder and more acute view, when he
shows that the dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine will rather than of
prescience. If God merely foresaw human events, and did not also arrange and dispose of them at
his pleasure, there might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge amounts
to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to happen, simply because he has decreed
that they are so to happen, it is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all events take
place by his sovereign appointment.
In Him,
Bill
Nobody has any excuse. That much is for sure. And that none of us deserve his mercy, is also for sure.
Who are you talking about here, by "we"?Which would imply that we must have been capable of complying with God’s will in order to be guilty of our sin. A person who is incapable of complying with a law cannot be considered guilty of breaking it and deserving of punishment if it is beyond his control.
Eph 2, Rom 8 ...? No comments!Who are you talking about here, by "we"?
But we have been through your logic here before. Repetition will not avail you.
But I will repeat some of my answers your assertion anyway, since we have this pretty new format.
(1) I assert: The command does not imply the ability to obey. After all, you assert without any evidence. I can too.
(2) We humans are by default guilty, and spiritually dead, quite apart from any known command. There need not be some certain sin of our own to point at as having begun it. This of necessity continues throughout our lives unless and until we are born again. And if you insist that the command was there already when we first sinned, then why were we not aware of it in order to 'freely' choose?
(3) The spiritually dead (Ephesians 2) have no ability to save themselves. Nor do they even have the ability (Romans 8) to choose God. Helpless (Romans 5). Without hope (Also Ephesians 2).
(4) "God commands all people everywhere to repent." HOW, I ask, can those who are spiritually dead, who will not and cannot submit to God's law, and who cannot please God, actually truly repent? So here we truly have a situation where the command does not imply the ability to obey.
My comments were to @BNR32FAN but to answer your question, yes, in effect, to claim that God won't regenerate you until you first have faith (and that of yourselves), claiming, in effect, that your eternal destiny thus hinges on YOUR decision, is to save yourself.Eph 2, Rom 8 ...? No comments!
Are there any Christians who think they can save themselves? I have yet to meet one.
I ask for this reason:To his disciples. Why do you ask?
I hear this all the time.My comments were to @BNR32FAN but to answer your question, yes, in effect, to claim that God won't regenerate you until you first have faith (and that of yourselves), claiming, in effect, that your eternal destiny thus hinges on YOUR decision, is to save yourself.
The parable of the workers in the vineyard teaches us that we are to mind our own business and not be concerned with everyone else.The ideas that Luther et al had were evident from the beginning. They did not invent them. Some may have organized thoughts in regard to what has been evident, particularly to defeat teaching that had run afoul of the Word of God. But it was not new.
We have all sinned. What excuse do we have. We get what we bargained for, but he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is not ours to cry, "unfair!"
In the parable of the workers in the field, those who complained were told (my paraphrase), "Why are you upset with me, because I am generous with some? Don't I have the right to do as I will with my own money?" They got what they bargained for.
PSThe ideas that Luther et al had were evident from the beginning. They did not invent them. Some may have organized thoughts in regard to what has been evident, particularly to defeat teaching that had run afoul of the Word of God. But it was not new.
We have all sinned. What excuse do we have. We get what we bargained for, but he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy. It is not ours to cry, "unfair!"
In the parable of the workers in the field, those who complained were told (my paraphrase), "Why are you upset with me, because I am generous with some? Don't I have the right to do as I will with my own money?" They got what they bargained for.
Good Day, JohnPer the above, Calvinist reasoning always requires a lengthy argument with multiple questionable scripture interpretations and/or philosophy. Hear me - that is your red flag. We are in the NT where all the important mysteries have been revealed (Ephesians 3:1-13): If a broad category of truth is important to God, expect it to be clearly stated in the NT. For example, the truth in 1 Timothy 2:1-6 clearly states that God desires all to be saved and that Christ paid the ransom for all men - that truth is enough to eliminate Calvinist determinism in straight thinkers who value scripture. Again think straight.
(1) I assert: The command does not imply the ability to obey. After all, you assert without any evidence. I can too.
God will grant the ability to repent to all who humble themselves to Him. The scriptures even indicate that He has granted the ability to repent to those who have not humbled themselves to Him. Romans 2:4-5.(2) We humans are by default guilty, and spiritually dead, quite apart from any known command. There need not be some certain sin of our own to point at as having begun it. This of necessity continues throughout our lives unless and until we are born again. And if you insist that the command was there already when we first sinned, then why were we not aware of it in order to 'freely' choose?
(3) The spiritually dead (Ephesians 2) have no ability to save themselves. Nor do they even have the ability (Romans 8) to choose God. Helpless (Romans 5). Without hope (Also Ephesians 2).
(4) "God commands all people everywhere to repent." HOW, I ask, can those who are spiritually dead, who will not and cannot submit to God's law, and who cannot please God, actually truly repent? So here we truly have a situation where the command does not imply the ability to obey.
You didn't cite it. But ok, we'll deal with what you did say. Coercion is to compel one to do something by threats and intimidation. (Ironically, that more closely resembles the notion that the threat of Hell is what brings someone to produce Faith!) But, how is that the same as to control someone, in the sense of how God "causes all things, whatsoever shall come to pass"? We decide according to our preferences, according to our inclinations. And fluid as our preferences are, the lost are unable to prefer God, though they may well think they prefer God.
To your mentality of self-determination, God controlling everything necessarily rules out actual ability to choose on the part of the controlled person. This is not so. (And not that I agree with the notion of God coercing, but even in the case of coercion, one still actually chooses to go with their preference even then, even if their preference is only coerced for the moment they decide. They decide that to comply with the coercion is better than the alternative.) God can coerce, certainly. He did so with Jonah, for example. But the Grace of regeneration is not coerced. Regeneration is indeed done to the elect person, without asking their permission, by a changing of their very being, from Dead to Alive. This is to be Born Again, to become a new person. It no more needs to be a decision on the part of the person than it needed to be so when they were born in the flesh. And yes, God has every right to do so, and to be just in doing so since we are his creatures, just as certainly as he has every right (and is just) as when we were born the first time.
I can doubt I am saved, regardless of whether I am or not, and regardless of how I think I became saved, because of the evidence of works (i.e. by disobedience). Furthermore, as was for so long my case, where I KNEW I had chosen Christ, and remembered the sweetness, joy and intensity of fellowship with him, as scripture says will happen my heart condemned my works, in fact so often that I despaired of the confidence that I had really chosen him, really repented, really was sincere, regardless of the feeling or thoughts of sincerity I had at the time of repentance or decisions to obey. Like a spoiled child I sometimes demanded he show himself to me if I was really his, to show that I was changed by MAKING me obey if necessary, and even in the demanding I found joy in the focus of my energies for the moment, but in the end, I could not trust myself. You could possibly identify with me in the agony of the desire for holiness, to be like him.
I'm happy to hear this.I KNOW I am his, not by my decision, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit to my spirit. There is no better way to know. I am his, not my own. I am totally at his mercy. Not even the evidence of obedience, and when my conscience is satisfied that I am in him, can give me that joy and satisfaction of knowing I am totally at his mercy.
Shall I sin then, that grace may abound? Of course not!
Aye! Which came first? Logically, causation comes 'before' effect —i.e. the time sequence is irrelevant as to the cause. That is, unless you assume self-determination. I expect there are many of us that had no epiphanic (is that a word? epiphanous?) or crisis moments to point to, where I can only suggest that the Holy Spirit may have moved in and we didn't know it, in time-sequence prior to that moment, or that it happened simultaneous with that moment of crisis. Either way, according to Romans and Ephesians and other scriptures, and according to the witness of many believers, God caused it by the Spirit of God, and not by the will of man. Some people have even found that somehow they simply "came to believe" and don't have a time to point to, yet find themselves desiring and loving God, and inclined to submit and obey, and having the witness of the Holy Spirit to their spirit.
I agree.By grace we have been saved through faith. I find myself compelled to repeat, that if one's faith is self-generated, it is powerless. It doesn't even know how bad sin is, nor the graciousness of God, in its intellectual and emotional understanding of the Gospel! But if it is generated by the Spirit of God it is altogether powerful, wise, knowledgeable, capable and true!, unlike our weak, silly, ignorant, self-seeking, rebellious, self-determining ambivalent selves. (And that same faith is what continues after regeneration to compel obedience and repentance and desire for Christ.) Do we decide? Oh yes, indeed we do! Gladly, gratefully. Must we decide? Of course we must, or we do not belong to him! Do our decisions bear fruit? Most certainly they do! And that too is the grace of God.
Agreed. We are enabled to obey.WILL is an important gift from God. But if 'FREE' declares independence from the causation by God, freewill is an illusion. HOW, I ask, is anything we do good, if not done by the will of God???
But the notion that God changing us so completely makes us automatically obey, is bunk. And that is not what any theology I am familiar with teaches. Instead, we believe the regenerated are 'enabled' to obey, which the lost are not. The regenerated rather obviously do sin, but do not continue to be sinning. They will want to repent, to yeild their will, to obey. They love God, as they are compelled to do by the Spirit within them. God is not mocked. We don't ignore James' necessary exhortations. We certainly have choice.
Agreed. The first cause can have no cause.To a simply logical mind, (even that of an atheist who ironically also clings to self-determination), all things are caused, except first cause. The law of causation is pervasive. Nothing is quite spontaneous, except God himself.
LOLAnd not to disagree with quantum theory, but if a particle moves as a result of observation, it, too, is caused to move. Even if it 'spontaneously comes into existence' or 'disappears from existence' as some claim, it is caused to do so. It is not 'free' of causation, nor does any human's 'free' will cause it to do anything. It may well be though, that it can be used as proof of God's existence, though I can't quite see how to do that —i.e. for me, it is still intuitive at this point. (It tickles me no end that even those who understand it best say that if anyone thinks they understand quantum theory, they don't understand it.)
Nothing drilled into me by secular sources.Like I have said before and elsewhere, and maybe I didn't say it anywhere you have read it, that I came to these conclusions, believing what I do, long before I knew they resembled Calvinism or Reformed Theology. I didn't get it from them. Calvin is nothing to me. I don't discard his claims, I just don't care about it for its own sake. I've never even studied about him. I hear more about Calvin from those who disagree with me than from those who agree with me.
You say that a person has to be introduced into the 'reformed faith'. Likewise, I could say the same about you. Your worldview of self-determination is even drilled into you by secular sources, nevermind that common current Christendom demands it. It is how you think, because it is how you were brought up. But I'll agree, the mentality of self-determination comes more naturally than that which accepts the necessity of predestination.
All means all.Good Day, John
So you quote a bit Calvin thinking you have a point.... Now you may disagree with Him and that is ok. But one would think that you at least would address the issue he raises with in the whole context of what he is writing about.
I assume you have read Calvin on 1 Tim 2:1-6... Lets look at premier Greek NT Scholar Thomas R. Schreiner on this text
CONTEXT OF 1 TIMOTHY
As most commentators agree, a mirror reading of 1 Timothy suggests that in this epistle the apostle Paul confronts some kind of exclusivism heresy. Perhaps Paul’s opponents relied on genealogies to limit salvation to only a certain group of people, excluding from God’s saving purposes those who were notoriously sinful or those from so-called inferior backgrounds (1:4; cf. Titus 3:9).2 Paul writes to remind Timothy and the church that God’s grace is surprising: his grace reaches down and rescues all kinds of sinners, even people like Paul who seem to be beyond his saving love (1:12–17).
GOD’S DESIRE TO SAVE ALL IN 1 TIMOTHY 2:1–7
Paul’s reflections on his own salvation function as an important backdrop for the discussion of salvation in 1 Timothy 2:1–7, a key passage relating to definite atonement. Some contend that the emphasis on “all” precludes definite atonement.3 Paul begins by exhorting his readers to pray “for all people” (ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀνθρώπων; v. 1). Does Paul refer here to every person without exception or to every person without distinction? The immediate reference to “kings and all who are in high positions” (v. 2) suggests that various classes of people are in view.4Is such a reading of 1 Timothy 2:1–2 borne out by the subsequent verses? Praying for all is “good” and “pleasing” (v. 3), for God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (ὃς πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν; v. 4). The same question arising in verse 1 surfaces here again: Does “all people” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους; v. 4) refer to every person without exception or to every person without distinction? The Reformed have traditionally defended the latter option.5 Sometimes this exegesis is dismissed as special pleading and attributed to Reformed biases. Such a response is too simplistic, for there are good contextual reasons for such a reading. A focus on all people without distinction is supported by verse 7, where Paul emphasizes his apostleship and his ministry to the Gentiles: “For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Hence, there are grounds in the context for concluding that “all people” zeros in on people groups, so that Paul is reflecting on his Gentile mission. In Acts 22:15 (NIV), when Paul speaks of being a witness “to all people” (πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους), he clearly does not mean all people without exception; “all” refers to the inclusion of the Gentiles in his mission (Acts 22:21).6
The parallel with Romans 3:28–30 provides further evidence that Paul thinks particularly of all people without distinction in 1 Timothy 2:4.7 Both Jews and Gentiles, according to Paul, are included within the circle of God’s saving promises. Paul contends that both are justified by faith, for the oneness of God means that there can be only one way of salvation (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5). One of the advantages of the people group interpretation is that it centers on a major theme in Pauline theology, namely, the inclusion of the Gentiles.
Such an interpretation does not seem to be special pleading, for even interpreters unsympathetic to the Reformed position detect an emphasis on Gentile inclusion in response to some kind of Jewish exclusivism (1 Tim. 1:4). For example, Marshall says, “This universalistic thrust is most probably a corrective response to an exclusive elitist understanding of salvation connected with the false teaching. . . . The context shows that the inclusion of Gentiles alongside Jews in salvation is the primary issue here.”8 And Gordon Fee remarks on verse 7, “This latter phrase in particular would seem to suggest some form of Jewish exclusivism as lying at the heart of the problem.”9
In sum, Paul reminds his readers of a fundamental truth of his gospel: God desires to save all kinds of people.10 As William Mounce says, “the universality of salvation [is] the dominant theme” in the paragraph.11 The idea of salvation is supported by the phrase “to come to the knowledge of the truth” (εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν; v. 4), which is simply another way of describing the gospel message of salvation (cf. 2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7; cf. Titus 1:1). The universal reach of salvation flows from a fundamental tenet of the OT and Judaism: there is only one God (cf. Deut. 6:4). Since there is only one God, there is only one way of salvation, for “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς; 1 Tim. 2:5). God’s saving intentions are universal, including both Jews and Gentiles.
Marshall objects to the Reformed interpretation of all kinds of people, arguing that dividing groups from individuals fails, “since in the last analysis divisions between individuals and classes of humankind merge into one another.”12 But the Reformed view does not exclude individuals from God’s saving purposes, for people groups are made up of individuals. The exegetical question centers on whether Paul refers here to every person without exception or every person without distinction. We have already seen that there is strong evidence (even in Marshall) that the focus is on the salvation of individuals from different people groups. For example, in his paper, “Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles,” Marshall states,
The pastor [Paul] is emphasizing that salvation is for everybody, both Jew and Gentile. . . . But it does not help the defender of limited atonement, any more than the view that “all” refers to “all kinds of people,” for what the Pastor is telling his readers to do is to pray for “both Jews and Gentiles,” not for the “the elect among Jews and Gentiles.”13
Marshall fails to see that by arguing that prayers are to be made for “Jews and Gentiles” he inadvertently affirms what he earlier denies: the Reformed position of “all kinds of people.” Moreover, Marshall actually misrepresents the Reformed view here, which is not that Paul teaches that our prayers should be limited to the elect. The Reformed position has consistently maintained that we are to pray for Jews and Gentiles, Armenians and Turks, Tutsis and Hutus, knowing that God desires to save individuals from every people group. Knowing this does not mean that we know who the elect are so that we limit our prayers to them.
The interpretation of “all without distinction” should be carried over into 1 Timothy 2:6. Here Christ is designated as the one “who gave himself as a ransom [ἀντίλυτρον] for all.”14 Clearly, we have the idea of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice, where he gives his life as a ransom for the sake of others.15 It seems best to take the “all” (πάντων) in the same sense as we saw earlier (vv. 1, 4), meaning all kinds of people, since Paul particularly emphasizes his Gentile mission in the next verse (v. 7). Moreover, Paul most likely alludes here to Jesus’s teaching that he gave “his life as a ransom [λύτρον] for many [πολλῶν]” (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45), which in turn echoes Isaiah 53:11–12. As Alec Motyer demonstrates elsewhere in this volume, the referent of “many” in Isaiah 53, though it encompasses an undefined but numerous group of people, is still necessarily limited—it refers to those for whom redemption is both accomplished and applied—and therefore cannot refer to every single person.16 If these intertextual connections are correct, then Christ giving himself as a ransom for “all without exception” is ruled out.17
First Timothy 2:6 supports the notion that Christ purchased salvation for all kinds of individuals from various people groups. The verse and context say nothing about Christ being the potential ransom of everyone. The language in verse 6—“who gave himself” (ὁ δοὺς ἑαυτόν)—is a typically Pauline way of referring to the cross, and always refers to Christ’s actual self-sacrifice for believers (Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2; Titus 2:14). It stresses that Christ gave himself as a ransom so that at the cost of his death he actually purchased those who would be his people. The reason Paul can speak of Christ’s death in expansive, all-inclusive terms in 1 Timothy 2:6 is because he sees his ministry as worldwide (2:7; cf. Acts 22:15), his soteriology is universal in the right sense (2:5; cf. Rom. 3:28–30), and he is confronting an elitist heresy that was excluding certain kinds of people from God’s salvation (1 Tim. 1:4). Paul wants to make it clear: Christ died for all kinds of people, not just some elite group.18
Do you deny that God saves all kinds of people?
In Him,
Bill
Mark,Who are you talking about here, by "we"?
But we have been through your logic here before. Repetition will not avail you.
But I will repeat some of my answers your assertion anyway, since we have this pretty new format.
(1) I assert: The command does not imply the ability to obey. After all, you assert without any evidence. I can too.
(2) We humans are by default guilty, and spiritually dead, quite apart from any known command. There need not be some certain sin of our own to point at as having begun it. This of necessity continues throughout our lives unless and until we are born again. And if you insist that the command was there already when we first sinned, then why were we not aware of it in order to 'freely' choose?
(3) The spiritually dead (Ephesians 2) have no ability to save themselves. Nor do they even have the ability (Romans 8) to choose God. Helpless (Romans 5). Without hope (Also Ephesians 2).
(4) "God commands all people everywhere to repent." HOW, I ask, can those who are spiritually dead, who will not and cannot submit to God's law, and who cannot please God, actually truly repent? So here we truly have a situation where the command does not imply the ability to obey.
All means all.
It does not mean ALL KINDS of people.
Plus, why use a commentary?
The bible should surely be sufficient since that is how a person can become saved.
Mark,
Why would God command all people everywhere to repent
if He knows it's not possible?
Would you ask a 5 year old child to write a thesis on justification?
No. Because you know it's not possible for him to do so.
So since he cannot do this - do you punish him?
Because BBAS it seems to me that the reformed change the meaning of words.Good Day, GG101
So then you think that two countries were baptized in the Jordan.. tell me how do you baptize countries.
And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Really not a commentary it is Greek exegesis and grammatical construction of the text.
"should" be?
God saves people, The Scripture is the instrumental means that God uses. To those that are perishing it is foolishness and smells like burning trash.
God is the How... Salvation is of the Lord.
In Him,
Bill
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?