Is sin the reason for one's damnation or not?

[FreeGrace2]

So, when said that way, let me ask you this: whose faith? If you say the man's faith, then you are saying that the man makes himself alive.

No, I'm not. Your saying that I'm saying that is only your opinion, which is wrong. God is the One who makes men alive. And He quickens (makes alive)those who believe. Eph 2:5 compared with 2:8.

If you say God's faith, then it is God who makes the man alive. Everything God does is by faith. Jesus proved that.

I just proved that Paul equated being made alive with being saved (2:5), and then in 2:8 he noted that salvation is through faith. Faith precedes salvation, and Calvinists admit to this.

Bottom line is, it is GOD who makes them alive. All by Himself.

Glad we agree on this!

I am not saying that God believes for the man, but in the order of how things are stated, being made alive comes first.

Some Calvinists do claim that God is the cause of man's faith. However, comparing Eph 2:5 and 2:8 shows that faith precedes salvation, and being made alive is equated with being saved.

Dead men do not believe. Dead men don't do anything.

This is just a very tired red herring. Jesus refutes that in Jn 5:25 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

There it is: the dead will hear and the dead ones who hear will live.

Note: when Jesus spoke of the "dead", He wasn't speaking of physical death. I'm sure that's what's confusing your view.

Therefore Regeneration MUST precede faith in order for the man to be able to believe. That is a FACT.

Wrong. I've refuted your view soundly. Review this very post.

Stamp your foot and insist all you want, I've just shown you that this passage teaches that very thing. You don't like it because it isn't stated in so many words, and also because you don't like the idea that man is not in control in any fashion in the process of Salvation.

First, the opposite is true; I've just shown you from Eph 2:5 and 8 that faith precedes being made alive (salvation).

Second, I'm always amused when others try to force on me what I don't like. Especially when they have no clue as to what I don't like.

When God decides you will be saved, you WILL be saved, and He does not need your permission to do so.

Exactly! He saves ONLY those who believe. And He's pleased to do so. 1 Cor 1:21. Yep. I actually have a verse that SAYS what I believe. Unlike RT.

And yes, He saves men against their will, because their will is no impediment to God having His way with them.

Really? What verse is there that SAYS that? Please share. Or ignore the request when you can't find one.

Deal with it!

I've done more than that. I refuted your view.

 

[Hammster]

This from monergism.com:

In some of the elements of the application of redemption that we discuss in subsequent chapters, we play an active part (this is true, for example, of conversion, sanctification and perseverance). But in the work of regeneration we play no active role at all. It is instead totally a work of God. We see this, for example, when John talks about those to whom Christ gave power to become children of God—they “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13). Here John specifies that children of God are those who are “born...of God” and our human will (“the will of man”) does not bring about this kind of birth.

Regeneration - What does it mean to be born again? by Wayne A. Grudem

Are they wrong in saying that John 1:13 is referring to rebirth?

One of us is.

But even if I agree with them, it still doesn't support your view.

 

[janxharris]

One of us is.

But even if I agree with them, it still doesn't support your view.

None of which refutes what John 1:13 says: Faith precedes regeneration.

Ephesians 1:13 concurs, as does Acts 16:31.

And they are explicit.

 

[Hammster]

I have verses that actually SAY what I claim. And mutltiple verses for each claim.

Yes you do. I never said otherwise. The problem is that they are disjointed. No context. That is why your view is shallow.

Of course, your opinion cannot be backed up with Scripture.

Of course it can.

OK, thanks for admitting (inadvertently) that the non-elect (those Christ didn't die for) aren't lost, and therefore don't need saving. That places your theology in the universalist camp. Wow.

No it doesn't. Since God has no intention of saving the non-elect, there's no need to call them lost. If they were lost, he'd find them.

OK, Jesus said to preach the good news to even the non-elect poor. Which would be a total lie, given that He wouldn't die for them (RT view). So your view is that Jesus promoted lying to those He wouldn't die for. Wow.

if they believe, they'll be saved. Not a lie.

Oh, you didn't like my clarification? Are you suggesting that "the unrighteous" refers ONLY to those for whom Christ died (not everyone, per RT)? The verse is clear: Christ died for sins of the unrighteous. RT claims that Christ died ONLY for the elect. So, this verse would suggest, per RT logic, that ONLY the elect were unrighteous. So, what does that make those for whom Christ didn't die? Righteous. What else could they be?

When you come up with something tat actually makes sense, let me know.

Rom 5:6 - Christ died for the ungodly. And your agreement that the ungodly doesn't refer to ONLY or JUST the elect. Which proves that Christ died for everyone, because everyone is ungodly.

If the ungodly are elect, and He died for the elect, He died for the ungodly.

the verse doesn't say that. Mark 2:17 says that He came to call sinners. Nothing about ONLY certain sinners. Proving once again that He died for all as all are sinners. Rom 3:9,23.

Okay. The elect are sinners. If he calls the elect, he's calling _____

Actually, thanks for making all my points that RT either leads to universalism, or that Christ died for everyone; depending on which question you have answered.

Considering that you obviously didn't understand what I meant, this statement is null and void. Hopefully the further clarification helped.

 

[Hammster]

None of which refutes what John 1:13 says: Faith precedes regeneration.

Ephesians 1:13 concurs, as does Acts 16:31.

And they are explicit.

None of those say that. I have no idea why you'd think so. Except to keep your tradition propped up, I suppose.

 

[Hammster]

So what? Paul equated "being made alive" with "being saved" in 2:5. And 2:8 shows that salvation follows faith.


Compare 2:5 and 2:8 and do the math. Real simple.

Actually, salvation follows grace. Read the passage.

 

[janxharris]

None of those say that. I have no idea why you'd think so. Except to keep your tradition propped up, I suppose.

Again, assertion with no evidence.

 

[Hammster]

I said this:
Except none of these verses back up what you say.
and your response:

Since you understand that none of those verses back up what you say, why do you say what you say?

I understand why you think the verses don't back up what I say. You only think in single verses, so passages have no place in your theology. When you see a passage, you either deconstruct it, or go find a verse that you think counters it.

That's what I meant.

 

[Hammster]

Again, assertion with no evidence.

You're the one who listed verses with no exposition. So my counter was in kind.

 

[janxharris]

None of those say that. I have no idea why you'd think so. Except to keep your tradition propped up, I suppose.

Where is the explicit verse that teaches regeneration before faith?

 

[janxharris]

You're the one who listed verses with no exposition. So my counter was in kind.

Again, no refutation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yes you do. I never said otherwise. The problem is that they are disjointed. No context.

The multiple verses SAY exactly what I believe, and RT cannot provide verses that SAY exactly what it claims. Hiding behind "context" is meaningless when one cannot find any verses that say what they believe.

No it doesn't. Since God has no intention of saving the non-elect, there's no need to call them lost. If they were lost, he'd find them.

That's an interesting spin. We know that the lost need saving. Everyone is lost. btw, God doesn't have "intentions". That would only be true if God wasn't omniscient. So your opinion is flawed.

if they believe, they'll be saved. Not a lie.

The lie is telling someone for whom Christ didn't die (RT false view) to believe in order to be saved. But RT seems extremely unwilling to acknowledge that fact.

If the ungodly are elect, and He died for the elect, He died for the ungodly.

Another very interesting twist. The verse doesn't say "some of the ungodly", which is basically your insinuation. The verse refutes the RT view of limited atonement. Christ died for the ungodly. Not only some of them.

Okay. The elect are sinners. If he calls the elect, he's calling

All are sinners. Christ died for sinners. Not ONLY SOME of them, as you keep trying to spin and twist it.

Considering that you obviously didn't understand what I meant, this statement is null and void. Hopefully the further clarification helped.

Why would your statement clarify anything? All that was done was try to spin some specific verses into forcing them to say something they DIDN'T say.

All the verses say that Christ came for sinners, ungodly, etc. Which describes everyone, not just the elect. The attempt to manipulate the Bible into fitting into one's own theology is obvious.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, salvation follows grace. Read the passage.

And faith, which apparently for some unknown reason, you deny.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I understand why you think the verses don't back up what I say. You only think in single verses, so passages have no place in your theology.

Your opinion is erroneous.

When you see a passage, you either deconstruct it, or go find a verse that you think counters it.

If that were true, I'm very sure someone would have been explicit about how I "deconstructed" the verse.

And I haven't found verses that I "think" counters the RT claims. I have provided verses that actually counters RT claims.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Where is the explicit verse that teaches regeneration before faith?

How long can you hold your breath?

 

[Hammster]

Where is the explicit verse that teaches regeneration before faith?

No verse. How about passages, though?

John 3:3ff

Eph 2:1ff

 

[Hammster]

Again, no refutation.

No argument to refute.

 

[Hammster]

And faith, which apparently for some unknown reason, you deny.

No. We are justified by faith, according to Paul.

 

[Hammster]

Your opinion is erroneous.


If that were true, I'm very sure someone would have been explicit about how I "deconstructed" the verse.

And I haven't found verses that I "think" counters the RT claims. I have provided verses that actually counters RT claims.

Every time you use a verse out of context (which is pretty much your theology), you've deconstructed the text.

 

[nobdysfool]

No, I'm not. Your saying that I'm saying that is only your opinion, which is wrong. God is the One who makes men alive. And He quickens (makes alive)those who believe. Eph 2:5 compared with 2:8.

Eph 2:5 "by grace are you saved" No mention of faith here. And your opinion of my opinion is equally wrong.

I just proved that Paul equated being made alive with being saved (2:5), and then in 2:8 he noted that salvation is through faith. Faith precedes salvation, and Calvinists admit to this.

Ah, but regeneration is not salvation. Salvation encompasses several different and related things. Playing fast and loose with terms is the mark of the anti-Calvinist. Being made alive logically equates to regeneration (aka born again).

Some Calvinists do claim that God is the cause of man's faith.

That is not what I said. Please read again,. carefully. I said:

I am not saying that God believes for the man, but in the order of how things are stated, being made alive comes first.

All Calvinists would say that saving faith is a gift imparted by God through the Word of God (Romans 10:17)

However, comparing Eph 2:5 and 2:8 shows that faith precedes salvation, and being made alive is equated with being saved.

Playing fast and loose with terminology. Made alive precedes faith, because one must first be quickened in order to believe since faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God. Eph 2:5 says it is by grace we are saved. The first act of that grace is to make one alive.

This is just a very tired red herring. Jesus refutes that in Jn 5:25 - “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

There it is: the dead will hear and the dead ones who hear will live.

Note: when Jesus spoke of the "dead", He wasn't speaking of physical death. I'm sure that's what's confusing your view.

Nice little dig at me. The intended innuendo is that I'm confused and possibly stupid. I assure you, I am neither.

Of course we know it's not referring to physical death. But spiritual death makes one deaf to the things of a spiritual nature, one of which is the Gospel.

Wrong. I've refuted your view soundly. Review this very post.

So it's all about refutation, another notch on the ole gunbelt. Sad thing is you refuted nothing. I showed where your sloppy use of terminology and swapping words renders your supposed "refutation" of no value.

First, the opposite is true; I've just shown you from Eph 2:5 and 8 that faith precedes being made alive (salvation).

Actually you did no such thing.

Second, I'm always amused when others try to force on me what I don't like. Especially when they have no clue as to what I don't like.

I think we have a better idea than you know...

Exactly! He saves ONLY those who believe. And He's pleased to do so. 1 Cor 1:21. Yep. I actually have a verse that SAYS what I believe. Unlike RT.

And, as has been pointed out, your theology consists of single verses, often ripped from their context. Your theology is just soundbites.

Really? What verse is there that SAYS that? Please share. Or ignore the request when you can't find one.

Much of RT is built on passages, taken in context, and compared with other passages, in context to arrive at a coherent theology that isn't built on soundbites.

I've done more than that. I refuted your view.

Obviously you put great stock in refutation. Is the the sine qua non of theological discussion for you? Seems like it. For you, apparently, refutation means "I win". How juvenile...