Man's inability

[Lockheed]

I believe most of your questions have been answered adequately in my previous post also I believe there are ample historic Reformed papers available online that may better present the case than I can, however, I will still endevour to do what I can.

1) Supernatural enablement required. What kind of enablement does one need to receive a gift? The Bible declares salvation and eternal life as a gift. A gift is merely received to be possesed. Jesus offers a gift, and men receive that gift by believing in Him for it. What Scripture can you cite, that explicitly states that man is inable to believe in Christ for eternal life? What Scripture can you produce that states that man cannot receive the free gift that God offers to all?

Firstly, you incorrectly identify the free gift as "eternal life", while eternal life is part of the free gift it is not the gift in total. The 'free gift' is complete redemption and restoration to the image of Christ through first, regeneration and then justification by faith.

Man is, by nature, God's enemy and hostile toward Him. In order for that to change the hostility has to be removed. Man however unable to move from a position of enmity and hostility on the basis that it is his nature is, as Paul states time and again, one of obedience to Satan and the flesh.

Rom 8:7-9
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
​

Paul establishes a contrast here between two types of people, those with minds set on the flesh and those who have the Spirit indwelling.

There can be no debate about this, it is evident from the language in verse 9 that "you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you".

This therefore identifies for us those in vs 7-8 as persons without the Spirit of God dwelling in them. These individuals do not belong to Christ and are not children of God. Thus it is evident that these are unbelievers as I'll explain.

The person in verses 7-8 is described as being 1) hostile toward God, 2) not in subjection to the Law of God, 3) unable to subject themself to God's law, 3) unable to please God.

The reason this is the case is because they do not have the Spirit dwelling in them, they have not been "made alive" (Eph 2:5) by the same power that raised Christ from the dead that is "the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you" (Rom 8:11).

Thus we see the threads between Paul's various letters connecting the dots for us in regards to the situation of the unregenerate person, those who have not been raised from the dead in the newness of life by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

These are the "dead in sin" spoken of in Eph 2:1, Col 2:12-13 and elsewhere.

Thus the "dead in sin" are hostile toward God, not in subjection to the Law of God, unable to subject themself to God's law, unable to please God. Being unable to please God they are thus unable to believe in the Son (which would please God), unless they are first raised to life anew by the Spirit.

This is accomplished graciously by God who takes unwilling, unable, rebellious sinners and raises them to life with Christ while they were "yet enemies."

2) Regeneration is necessary to understand the deep things of God, yes (let me explain)! .....The Calvinist must use his deductive reasoning skills and illegitametly transfer concepts from one passage to the next in order to "prove" that man cannot believe the gospel (where in fact the major testimony of Scripture makes it clear that man can and does believe the gospel apart from an imposition from God).

We can legitimately do so because the very author of the various verses is speaking of the same concepts therein. Be it Rom 8, Eph 2 or 1 Cor 2, Paul is expressing spiritual concepts through the power of the Holy Spirit in Him. It is therefore the burden of the individual denying these links to prove their position exegetically.

Simply declaring the links to be false in no way establishes that as truth. If you wish to debate the connection between Romans 8 and Eph 2, it is up to you to show how what I've posited is incorrect.

Man can and does believe in various facts about God, as is evident in Romans 1, but this in no way enables man to raise himself to life anew. Rather it serves to condemn him further. Thus Paul establishes evident doctrine in chap 1~3 of Romans wherein all mankind are alike under sin and justly facing the coming wrath of God.

It is in this dilemma that God mercifully and graciously reaches down out of heaven and saves some, not because they earned it, deserved it, or bought it with some inherient concept of 'faith' but because of His love for His creation.

You alluded to 1 Cor 2:14

1 Cor 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

A Calvinist reads this verse like this : "But the natural man does not receive Jesus Christ, for He is foolishness to him; nor can he receive Him, because He is spiritually discerned." All Calvinists, whether they admit it or not, have to read the verse just like this if they are using it to teach their doctrine of TI.

Paul uses similar language throughout his writings to express similar concepts. Paul's concept of the "natural man" and the person with the "mind set on the flesh" are synonymous.

Just as the person with the "mind set on the flesh" cannot please God, because he doesn't have the Spirit of God dwelling in him, the person without the Spirit of God dwelling in them cannot receive (believe, accept and act upon) the things of the Spirit of God.

The connection therefore is clear, Paul is expressing something about the same kind of individual in both passages.

The context is clearly things, not Jesus Christ.

The Gospel itself is a Spiritual thing (as is Christ Himself, God incarnate!). This argument is without basis.

This is infallibly determined by simply reading the chapter. Things are what is being discussed in 1 Corinthians 1:9-15. The word things occurs at least once in every verse. Those who have received "the Spirit which is of God" can know spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:12). And how does one receive the Spirit?

Again, one receives the Spirit by the power of God.

Gal 4:6
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
NKJV

God gives the Holy Spirit to his sons that they might have spiritual understanding;

You therefore have an apparent dichotomy to explain. For the Calvinist however we acknowledge that God's monergistic operation in salvation through regeneration is not simply a one-time event. God continually graciously provides the Spirit to His elect. A similar (here again Paul expresses similar ideas in various letters) passage can be found in Romans 8.

15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
​

How does this come about? "If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

he doesn't give His Spirit to "alien sinners" that they might be able to believe in Christ for eternal life.

To the contrary, that's exactly what He does: Eph 2:12-13 "remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."

And how does one become a son of God? John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name."

v13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
​

Why do you insist on misrepresenting the Scriptures so!? Why not attempt to reconcile this verse with your misuse of v12?

3) A supernatural change is needed for repentance... no! : repentance occurs in both the regenerate and unregenerate.

All of Ninevah repented, Jonah 3:5 "from the greatest to the least of them." "Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." (Jonah 3:10). Ninevah at this time had over 120,000 people (Jonah 4:11)! Do you think that they were all saved? My guess is that not many of them were saved at all, it any.

Your GUESS??? You deny the text of Scripture because it doesn't fit your tradition! The Bible states that God saved them, you deny that. God had compassion on the people of Ninevah, yet you respond just like Jonah.

Here is the bottom line. The 5 year old cannot do what she is commanded, no matter what. She never could from birth! Yet she has been commanded, and will be held responsible for something that, from birth, she is infallibly inable to do. How come this is, somehow, a strawman analogy?

Because the Law of God is not too difficult (Deut 30:11), it is not difficulty that prevents man from obeying God perfectly... it is sin.

How is it that man, at his birth, willingly gives it away into slavery? Do you mean Adam or everyone? I didn't give anything away...

God sovereignly chose Adam to represent you. I trust that God did an excellent job as usual. Don't you?

Lets make a side note here as well. Calvinism seems to deny that there is any soul winning or persuading men as to the gospel.

Strawman argument unworthy of response. I highly recommend that you read what I and what other Calvinist writers have written regarding evangelism.

God elects some to salvation and uses the preaching of the Gospel by men to call them to that salvation. Your strawman is ashes, please never attempt to use that against Calvinists again, it show that you are unwilling to actually interact with what we believe and seriously demonstrates a lack of credibility on your part.

 

[Lockheed]

BTW, I was tempted to machine gun fire dozens of Scriptures that give the condition for appropriating the free gift of eternal life (faith in Christ for it), but I have opted not to. The fact of the matter is that there is not one Scripture in the whole of the Bible that matches repentance with eternal life. But we know that there are dozens that pair faith/believe with eternal life.

Acts 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."
​

Rom 8:8
So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
NKJV

Here we find that as a consequence of man being "in the flesh" he cannot do anything good that is fundamentally pleasing to God to merit His salvation. The flesh cannot be changed, reformed, trained, or improved unless and until God changes it. But to say because of this a man cannot believe in Christ for eternal life is another thing. There is a way where God is pleased with the unregenerate: when they believe in His Son for eternal life:

So those in flesh can, in direct opposition to that verse, please God?

Are you saying Scripture is contradictory?

1 Cor 1:21
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
NKJV

No one has disputed that salvation comes through faith. This is another strawman argument.

God is pleased when people believe in His Son for eternal life!

Agreed, so how can people do the exact opposite of what Paul says in Rom 8:8? Explain.

As a side note, I'm wondering what you think of our friend Cornelius. There are many points here I wish to address. First, what do you make of this:

Acts 10:1-4
"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, 'Cornelius!" And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, 'What is it, lord?'

So he said to him, 'Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God.'"

This man feared God, prayed to God always, and selflessly gave alms to the people. There seems to be a result to this : his prayers and alms came up for a memorial before God. Was he saved at this time? No, as I will point out soon.

Cornelius had heard the Word of God, was regenerated and believed. Why do you believe this presents a problem?

Listen to what Luke says the angel said:

Acts 10:5-6
Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do [to appropriate eternal life, i.e. believe in Christ for it]
NKJV

Wow, that's completely contradictory to your position, isn't it?

Don't you believe that faith isn't something one does?

Does God set his hopes on things that are impossible? He knows all things. Why would He waste His time hoping that men might seek the Lord if he knew it was impossible for them to do so? Cornelius falsifies the claim that unsaved men can't and don't seek God!

Rom 3:11
There is none who seeks after God.
NKJV

There are three things wrong with the use of this phrase by the Calvinists to prove the truth of TI:

1)the design of the passage is not to teach man's inability

2)nothing is said about anyone not being able to seek God

3)and the fact that seeking God is not the same thing as believing in Christ for eternal life.

Look at the whole list:

Rom 3:10-18

"There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one."
13 "Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit";"The poison of asps is under their lips";
14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
NKJV

First of all, what the Calvinists seem to forget is that Paul, in establishing the universal guilt of Both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 3:1,9),

To the contrary, it is this fact of universal sinfulness that you are missing.

quotes from the Old Testament to give weight tp his arguments, not to charge each individual of the human race in particular with every indictment, nor to teach the inability of the unregenerate man to believe on Jesus Christ.

To the contrary, they're universal in nature, supporting Paul's claim that all have sinned, this is the result. One what exegetical basis (rather than your opinion, which is all you're providing here) do you state this?

There is a difference between establishing the universal depravity of man and charging individual men with sins.

Of course, no one is charging invididual men with sins except those which Paul states (infallibly I might add) that "all have sinned", so regardless of your apparent argument for the contrary, all have sinned, all are sinners and "none seek for God".

You can say that "all means all" but when it comes to "none" you're quick to deny it.

As we have just seen, Cornelius and "all his house" feared God (Acts 10:2). A Calvinist author, Donald Grey Barnhouse, states correctly : "Now we must not think that this passage is accusing every member of the human race of having committed all of these individual sins". An equally important observation is that nothing is said in the phrase in question (Rom 3:11), or the verse, or context about anyone not being able to seek God, although that is how every Calvinist reads it.

Again, you mistake man's desire with ability. Paul is not saying men are unable to seek for God, nor do we claim that man is created "unable" to seek for God, that is man is not made without the ability to seek for God, rather man purposefully does not seek for God. You have yet again misrepresented our position.

Romans 1 states plainly that men know God exists, yet do not worship Him.

Barnhouse writes, just following your partial quote: "What it is teaching is that the roots of all sin are in all men." At the end of the chapter Barnhouse notes that it is God that seeks and not man seeking God by which men come to faith in Him. Your attempt to misuse Barnhouse again shows the depths to which you're willing to go to uphold your tradition.

You seem to be equivocating here. First man is inable, and this due to it being the fruit of depravity, now he is only unwilling. You see the germainess of my analogy, so you must change definitions mid-course. Well which is it? Dort says both: "...they are neither able nor willing", Westminster says, "hath wholly lost all ability...".

The WCF states: "God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to good or evil.

being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto"... the loss of ability is due to their aversion to do good.

Reformed authors seem to agree that depravity causes total inability, not the doctrine of total unwillingness.

This simply proves that you neither have read Reformed authors nor understand what you have read and are instead simply parroting someone else. I highly recommend you do your own homework.

Also, I'm just wondering where on earth in the Bible does it say that? Also, didn't God cause Adam to sin?

"Plainly it was God's will that sin should enter this world, otherwise it would not have entered, for nothing happens save as God has eternally decreed. Moreover, there was more than a bare permission, for God only permits that which He has purposed" (A.W. Pink)

Is it your position that God was completely suprised by sin?

 

[Lockheed]

"...He has determined in Himself from all eternity everything which will be" (A.W. Pink)

"Not as much as a fly can settle upon you without the Creator's bidding..." (A.W. Pink)

"Nothing comes to pass contrary to his decree. Nothing happens by chance. Even moral evil, which he abhors and forbids, occurs 'by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.'" (W.G.T. Shedd)

"God, from eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminster Confession of Faith)

"The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass" (Westminster Shorter Catachism, asnwer to #7)

"All things, whatever, arise from and depend on the divine appointment" (Loraine Boettner)

"All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly" (Philip Melanchthon, quoted by Loraine Boettner)

"Even the fall of Adam, and through him the fall of the race, was not by chance or accident, but was so ordained in the secret counsels of God." (Loraine Boettner)

"Whatever is done in time is according to his decree in eternity" (John Gill)

"If God did not foreordain all things, then He could not know the future. God foreknows and knows all things because He decreed all things to be" (David S. West)

I take it you deny all of these? You believe that everything that happens in time somehow happens by... chance? What? Why are you posting these?

So we not only have God holding man accountable for something he cannot do, but God caused Adam to sin by the pre-determination of His secret counsels found in the eternal decree.

Where have I heard those words? Oh, yes!

Rom 9:19
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"
On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

​

It is apparent then that you simply don't like, nor desire to worship a God who is truly sovereign, having planned the purposes and destiny of this planet and all its inhabitants even before He created it.

I would hope that Paul's reply is sufficient to silence you as well as those who asked the same questions you pose in his day.

If man is an enemy to God, does not want God, cannot seek God, wants nothing to do with God, what else is it but a "sovereign imposition" to force someone to accept you and love you and take your gift?

Grace is a sovereign impostion. It is not grace or mercy to show favor to the deserving, rather it is merciful when one shows favor to the undeserving.

Thank God for that sovereign imposition... "I once was lost, now I'm found".

You mischaracterize things, however, in calling it force. Rather, God graciously raises the dead to life... I take it you'd rather have remained a slave to sin?

I beleive that this is a quote out of ignorance of the "Free Grace" position. A man is saved when after considering the evidence and testimony of Scripture about Jesus Christ he is persuaded as to the veracity of the claims, and believes (trusts) Jesus Christ for eternal life.

Right, in direct opposition to 1 Cor 2:14, we know and understand and adequately have represented your falsehood. Men who are hostile toward God do not trust in Christ.

Faith is not even something active. Faith is the passive result of becoming convinced that something is true.

It is being persuaded that something is true. Thus faith is passive! You should read the reformed author, Gordon H. Clarks faith and saving faith.

Clark is not Reformed in these issues, as he has rather aberent views and is in direct contention to historic reformed creeds.

Your first line here is insulting, and is a blazing hot straw man; and I agree with your second part. But God regenerates those and only those who believe in His Son for eternal life, as the Scriptures give major testimony.

Prove that it is a strawman by explaining how exactly you believed in Christ whereas others do not. What is it about you that caused you to believe whereas others won't....

I've asked this question time and again... and yet no response comes forth from your camp. Perhaps it is because they have no answer, or recognize the damage it does to their position.

Stuffed flannel shirts and pants, gasoline and a match!

Again, explain your views in opposition to what I have said, given that you are now appealing to Clark who likewise believes exactly as I have claimed.

I suppose when a beggar, destitute and barren, reaches out his hand to receive a free gift, it is, however purchased.

Yes when "reaching out" becomes the condition of receiving the gift. The Bible however presents not this beggar reaching out picture, but that of dead, dry bones... (Eze 37).

What a travesty of philosophy and reason (not to mention Scripture). This is elementary, friend. A child even can tell that the act of appropriating a gift is not payment for it! It is the Calvinist who must claim so.

Philosophy and reason are subject to God, thus it is God who defines true philosophy and true reason. Apart from God and His revealed nature in Scripture philosophy and reason have no basis, no root and are meaningless. Therefore it is imperitive that we define our philosophy based not on what we perceive and reason not on the basis of our emotions but on the Word of God.

How is causing someone who hates you to love you and accept you against their will "gracious"? That is the height of repugnancy.

Loving one's enemies is a commandment of God, it is this same type of love that God has for us to the extent that He saves us. I note that you dance around the verses I've provided to attack the argument, as if it stood alone.

The fact that God loves us, even while we were His enemies, and makes us His children through regeneration because we cannot do that ourselves, is the height of mercy and grace.

What is repugnant is that you believe man must first make himself God's friend in order to get God's grace.

Is God so in need of man's love that He must cause them to accept Him?

This is a "gracious portrait"? It seems fiendishly malevolent! Coerce and irresistably impose Your will on people who want nothing to do with you!

What does this have to do with anything? I see that you're attempting to present an argument from emotion, but on what basis do you believe any of this has any bearing on what we're talking about?

What something "seems" to you has no bearing on what God presents in Scripture. Rather, we must not allow our tainted human understanding of justice and love and the like color what God says in His Word.

It is most certainly love for a parent to reach out and stop a rebellious child from running into oncoming traffic... regardless of your opinion.

The death Christ died is either a satisfaction for the sins of some men (Limited Atonement) or a satisfaction for the sins of all men withut exception.

Correct. Very astute observation.

If it is a satisfaction of all men, without exception, then all men's sins are paid for... on what basis then does God condemn them?

If you reply "they don't believe in the Son", then I must ask... didn't Christ pay for that sin too? If not... please provide exegesis that proves your contention.

1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

"Not ours only..." <--- who was John addressing? Does "whole world" indicate "each and every person who ever lived" or "every kind of person"?

You're free to claim it means "every person who ever lived", yet the recipients of John's letter were Jewish Christians and needed to recognize that Gentiles were included in God's gracious plan. Thus "whole world" here means "without distinction".

There is ample evidence in Scripture to this point, as it was God's intention (as declared in Scripture) to provide a sacrifice and atonement for "His people". Likewise in the OT the sacrifices were for "His people" but did not apply to the Egyptians.

Now you might attempt to dismiss this, but recognize that it is God who declares His intent in atonement, that is to provide real (not potential) atonement for His people.

John 1:29
"Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

World = kosmos... Kosmos = universe, world... Does Christ take away the sins of dogs and cats? No, He takes away the sins of men, but not just Jews, Gentiles as well.

Are the sins of all men literally and completely taken away? If so, we're back to our question: why does God still hold them under wrath?

If you answer "they don't believe", then you'll have to explain 1) why that sin wasn't included in Christ's atonement and 2) why Scripture declares that God STILL holds individuals guilty of specific sins. (Romans 1:18)

Now this satisfaction for all must either be provisional or actual. Here is is to be noted that the 4 pt modified Dispensationalist Calvinists say that Christ's death was provisional and the 5 pter says that it was actual. I do not at all believe that his death was merely provisional, for then the passages which say it is a satisfaction and redemption and reconciliation must be qualified to mean it is provisionally a satisfaction. Let us not jump to hastily into a false dilemma. There are not just two options : provisional and actual (only for the elect).

While much of this is a copy/paste from another site, I'll address the main pt.

The Calvinist believes that the death of Christ is an actual satisfaction but limited to the elect only.

I believe the Bible clearly teaches that the death of Christ is an actual satisfaction and this for the whole world, but it had a limited intent. The intent of Christ's death was to completely satisfy the justice of God in a limited and specific sense. Christ's death has freed God to unconditionally accept those who believe. Its purpose was to remove all barriers to God's acceptance of the sinner. God's justice is now satisfied in the sense that He can now confer acceptance upon those sinners who believe.

Right... as I've stated before, faith then becomes the currency by which this atonement is purchased. God justice therefore is only satisfied by human works (as you've already stated that you believe faith is something one does.) Your view therefore is no different than other synergists and Pelagians, you believe man earns God's favor.

The Bible however presents God's intention differently. As I've stated previously it was God's intent to "take away their sins", and it is the New Covenant in which this is done. As God stated: "THIS IS MY COVENANT WITH THEM, WHEN I TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS."

 

[Lockheed]

This is a pretext. The context of this passage denies your assertions. You failed to quote the whole passage:

Eph 2:4-10
But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

You quote only up to vs 6. Yes God made us alive and by grace we are saved. Read down a little further... Vs 8 starts with an explanatory "gar". What has preceded will be explained by what is to follow.

In vs 8 we have a perfect periphrastic participial construction. It is the perfect participle with the verb of being. Translation into English is rather awkward, but here is an attempt:

For by grace you are in the present state of having been saved through faith. These Ephesians are in the present state of already having been saved by grace through faith. Faith is the divinely appointed channel by which God's gracious act of salvation is appropriated.

Right, none of this contradicts anything I've said. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith. Regeneration is not synonymous with salvation but is the first part thereof. Thus your understand simply serves to prove that salvation is by grace (firstly) through faith. Calvinists agree and in fact champion this view wholeheartedly. However, this in no way negates that it is God who acted to change the condition of men from one in accordance with the prince of the power of the air to one in which they are raised to life anew in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit that dwells in them.

I'm actually quite glad you brought this up as it serves to tie my first response to this one.

Rom 2:11
For there is no partiality with God.

First off, you have made God capricious and whinsical, and showing partiality to those who He has elected (those whom He was partial to by electing in His secret counsels by His eternal decree). And God has specifically chosen those who He will condemn.

Nothing capricious or whimsical about it. It is the position held by the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 and denied by you time and again. You however reject the Apostle's notion that God has mercy on whomever He wills and instead leave man to obtain the mercy through effort.

You may be able to give a hearty "amen" to Calvin whom you seem to be agreeing with:

"Those, therefore, whom God passes by he reprobates, and that for no other reason but because he is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines to his children ... whose pleasure it is to inflict punishment" (Institutes, III.XXIII,5)

Rom 9:17-18
For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

​

Secondly, where is the love in your statement?

You incorrectly assume that God is required to show love to all individuals equally, thus you assume that God is required to offer the same amount of saving grace to each. Nothing in Scripture supports this view. Rather we find that God in fact does show His mercy and love toward mankind by saving some of us.

The fact of the matter is that God is not required to save any of us, but instead graciously and mercifully does so.

You mean the kind of "love" that imposes its will upon those who want nothing to do with it?

Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

You mean the kind of "love" that forces one to accept You?

No, the kind of love that saves an enemy from a terrible fate by raising them to new life in Christ.

You mean the kind of love that sends men to hell apart from any chance whatsoever?

"All have sinned."

I don't know from what dictionary you may be reading, but the Calvinist God's "love" sounds more like cruelty to me.

Of course, because you reject the God of the Bible for a god made of your tradition. You cannot accept the God of the Bible, Almighty Maker of Heaven and Earth who continually and daily imposes His Perfect Will and Plan upon the people therein. No, you want a god that is more like a man than a god, one who has no plan, and simply hopes things will turn out his way.

Calvinists are in the rather awkward position of claiming to make a valid offer of salvation to the unelect while denying that Christ's death and provision of salvation is for the unelect and saying that the unelect can't possibly believe the gospel.

Trot out all the strawmen...

When you're ready to actually and respectfully deal with our views perhaps we might discuss again.

 

[TSIBHOD]

The poll doesn't have the option that I would pick: God is just to demand what man can't do, but only because He also provides a way for man to do it in Christ.

 

[cygnusx1]

The poll doesn't have the option that I would pick: God is just to demand what man can't do, but only because He also provides a way for man to do it in Christ.

big problem with that view ............... not everyone has even heared the Gospel , so for millions no provision has been made.

 

[Philip dT]

The poll doesn't have the option that I would pick: God is just to demand what man can't do, but only because He also provides a way for man to do it in Christ.

This is the correct, biblical view

big problem with that view ............... not everyone has even heared the Gospel , so for millions no provision has been made.

Not according to my bible.
The golspel is for all men and God has made provision for all to be saved if they believe in His work:

Isa 40:5; Joh 3:16; Joh 12:32; Titus 2:11; Rom 5:15,18; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:15,19; 1 Ti 2:6; 2 Pe 2:1; Heb 2:9; 10:29!; 1 Jo 2:2; Mat 18:14

 

[Caprice]

Merely saying, "That since God is only just, and what ever He does is just, therefore if God holds someone responsible for something that they absolutely can not do, it must be just!" will not suffice.

Yup, take away the option which is the only valid answer and then demand that we answer your question honestly. That makes loads of sence- prideful arrogance.

 

[TSIBHOD]

big problem with that view ............... not everyone has even heared the Gospel , so for millions no provision has been made.

God takes care of this somehow; I'm not sure how, but He isn't just a bookkeeper of the law; He cares for those people, too, and I'm sure that whatever He does is merciful.

 

[icxn]

Is it just/fair for God to give commands that He knows man cannot keep?

Can anybody come up with a command that man cannot keep?

icxn

 

[TSIBHOD]

Can anybody come up with a command that man cannot keep?

icxn

Without Christ, man cannot keep any of them. But with Christ, man can keep all of them, yes. And Christ came for every person.

 

[Lockheed]

Without Christ, man cannot keep any of them. But with Christ, man can keep all of them, yes. And Christ came for every person.

"with Christ, man can keep all of them, yes. .." I'd add... BY FAITH.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

Can anybody come up with a command that man cannot keep?

icxn

John 13:34 I new commandment i give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

this is a sacrifical love.....some people do this but unforunately more people in the church think about me, me, me instead of us, us, us

body truth here.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

"with Christ, man can keep all of them, yes. .." I'd add... BY FAITH.

how often are we postional in Christ or are we looking at the cares of this world.

 

[die2live]

The poll doesn't have the option that I would pick: God is just to demand what man can't do, but only because He also provides a way for man to do it in Christ.

Well said.
Without Christ, we are nothing. With Christ, there is nothing we cannot do. (Philippians 4:13, Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27)

 

[cygnusx1]

Oh how the natural man thinks he can come to Christ without it being granted... even though Jesus said NO man can come to me unless My Father grants it.


How the natural man reasons that God is unfair if He doesn't give everyone the same shot at redemption .... even though no-one deserves anything except punishment .

Oh how the natural man loves a potential atonement , and a hyperthetical chance for everyone to be saved. Even though Christ has paid with His life to obtain a reward , His own people .

Just one scripture would be sufficient to show these idle dreamers , far from men having an equal chance (many never even hear the Good News) and the presumption that all can come if they want to we are told in clear words

For among them are those who make their way to households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; (2 Timothy 3:6-8 RSV)

You see there does exist some who can Never arrive at a knowledge of the truth ...........

this isn't speaking of The OPEN message of the Gospel as some would have us believe , as if that believing is only a matter of an open revelation and human choice ............
but these men had BOTH and still could NEVER arrive at a knowledge of the truth!!!

It is refering to the Gospel as a inward Revelation to the Soul which is beyond human ability . It is not enough that sinners merely hear the Gospel , Satan can hear it and remains at enmity unto God , so do multitudes of men.
Only an inner revelation can bring someone to salvation, truly "salvation is OF The Lord"!

 

[hindsey]

Can anybody come up with a command that man cannot keep?

icxn

The command to obey the whole law - it is "unkeepable."

 

[Free Gracer]

1 John 5:3-4
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world -- our faith.
NKJV

 

[cygnusx1]

1 John 5:3-4
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. 4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world -- our faith.
NKJV

Yes , whatever is born of God .............. the regenerate , keep His commandments ..... and because we have been removed from the curse of The Law .... His commandments are not burdensome .

There is a vast difference between a heart full of love obeying God , and a heart dreading condemnation and being weighed down with the curse of The Law.