Fru said:
What you still have not grasped is that their being unwilling is why they are incapable. Man's desire (and thus his willingness) is such that he will NEVER, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, incline himself to God.
Actually,
this is true. What if the Holy Spirit really works in the hearts of ALL, in delivering the "call to salvation" to everyone?
His will is free in that he has the ability to choose according to his desire without coercion.
This is a perspective I do not understand. You balk at the word, "coercion"; but in the same breath assert "man's will is inexorably dictated by his predestined nature" ---
if his nature is dictated by God, how is his will not also dicated by God?
But his will is in slavery to a heart that is inclined to evil. Until and unless that desire is changed, they are incapable of believing because they are wholly unwilling to.
Have you ever read Romans 6?
"Consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Never! Do you not know that when you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one you obey --- either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, became slaves of righteousness."
Doesn't it read clearly that "being slaves to sin, OR slaves to righteousness, is continual choice"? And who actually makes that choice --- the man (in responding to His teaching), or God (in unilaterally changing his heart)? It says, "though you were slaves of sin" ---
this is before he is regenerated --- "you became obedient from the heart" ---
this is belief from his own heart, NOT God's unilateral changing-of-ig --- and having been freed from sin became slaves of righteousness ---
belief in the teaching, changes his heart; not vice-versa.
No, you have not, and that was my point. You dodged the main thrust of my comment, which was to challenge you to provide an explanation as to why the Scriptures are effective for one and not another, because the Scriptures alone are clearly not enough.
I think I
have. Titus3:5 speaks of "the washing of regeneration". This is the regeneration, the one regeneration of our hearts.
It says, "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit".
It says, "the Spirit was poured
through OUR SAVIOR Jesus".
Acts10-11 says "the Spirit was
poured AFTER BELIEF."
There is no two "poureds", only one. "Ekcheo" in both passages.
Regeneration is after belief. How can you deny it?
So you come in here talking about bad teaching in our churches, and then you try to separate the New Covenant from the Old such as the Old becomes irrelevant?
The old
is not irrelevant. It founds the new. But though we are not bound by Law, we are still obligated to uphold it. Now grace changes the heart, which follows Law; then following law changed the heart...
BTW, do you agree with my assertion regarding the key word?
Technically correct --- true saved-love will be in fellowship with God, it is an undeniable aspect. And yet, "fellowship"
defines the love, espouses the structure of saved-love.
In your mind perhaps, but that's because you have an obsession with salvific insecurity. To me "backslidden" means "failing for a time to actively progress in sanctification and regressing to a limited extent in behavior." It's neither a full nor a final "fall" into apostasy, simply a period of stumbling.
"Backslidden" means "sinning". There is no "limited-extent-sinning",
just as there is no "partially pregnant". As a woman is either "pregnant or NOT",
we are either dead to sin and alive in Him, or alive to sin and dead to Him.
Dead to sin means "not practicing" --- if we sin, we abide in repentance and walk not in sin but in righteousness.
Backslidden does not abide in repentance (or the sin would not repent), backslidden walks in sin.
Dodging the question. YOU said being saved is being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not belief. So, if the OT saints were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit but merely believed, then you must either revise your statement or agree that OT saints weren't saved.
Was there a covenant change between then and now?
Again, you're dodging the point. You said even if they can believe they can't be saved because they've "already been judged." I don't remember participating in that, even though I'm told I would.
The "judgment" is the formality
of the path already chosen. Do you believe that those who have rejected Christ
will be judged at the Final Judgment? Obviously they will. And yet, "he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the hame of the only begotten Son of God." Jn3:18
Your "salvation is fellowship" doctrine is hooey, Ben. Fellowship is a benefit and blessing of salvation...but it is not salvation itself.
Do you think there is "salvation without fellowship between God and man"?
Boy, if that isn't assuming your conclusion....
Assuming nothing. Re-stating 1Cor1:18-21, Titus3:5-6, Acts10:45 & 11:15-17.
That is a very, very weak attempt to explain a way a verse that mortally wounds your position, Ben.
I gave you Ezk18:24; irrefutible. You seek to make the case of "NEVER KNEW YOU" in Matt7 that
all who are cast away were NEVER-SAVED --- the same as you seek to make the case that
all who go out FROM us were never saved in 1Jn2:19. But the first "seek" denies the "fallen" of Rev2:5; and the second, denies the "go too far and not abide in Jesus' teachings" of 2Jn1:7-9.
peace in Christ 
