Pls read my response to MM. If "no one" is meant, then not even believers seek God or understands or Paul is still making his argument from 1:18-20 that all are without excuse.
skypair
Upvote
0
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.
Pls read my response to MM. If "no one" is meant, then not even believers seek God or understands or Paul is still making his argument from 1:18-20 that all are without excuse.The very passage that you reference shows there are NONE that do good, NO, NOT ONE...
The passage you cite blows a hole in your theology. There are not any people born on this Earth that do good in God's sight. God works in their hearts to bring them to Jesus, drawing them by His Holy Spirit, and making them into a new creation.
There are other things that are inconsistent in what you say you believe. They have been pointed out at length in earlier posts, and may be shown again, as the LORD leads.
Pls read my response to MM. If "no one" is meant, then not even believers seek God or understands or… Paul is still making his argument from 1:18-20 that all are without excuse.
skypair
Cornelius was not saved until he heard the gospel from Peter and believed on Jesus, but he was able to do good works that God recognized as works of "righteousness" for years before he was saved.
But we also see that Cornelius was ABLE to believe BEFORE he received the Holy Spirit
Thanks for this expose' of the truth....Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.
So many errors on your part, skypair.
First of all, you confuse justification with the broader term "salvation". The two are not synonymous. You argued:
Here, you use the word "saved" to refer to "justification". This is why your argument is wrong. In Acts 11:14, when it says "and you shall be saved", you are assuming that Peter means "and you shall be justified". The two ideas are not synonymous. We will be saved at the final judgement. That is salvation.
But we are justified during our lives. Justification refers to our legal standing before God, counted as guiltless. But we "will be saved" in the future when we are spared from God's wrath at the final judgement.
You mistakenly interchange these concepts because of a shallow and ignorant understanding of how the Bible authors use the word "salvation/saved" and you think that every instance of the word "saved" in the Bible means the same thing. News flash: it doesn't.
Thus, you mistakenly think that Cornelius wasn't justified until he heard the gospel. Even Abraham was justified in God's sight, and Abraham never heard the gospel of Jesus. (And he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6) In fact, Hebrews 11 lists many people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus who were in fact justified, and they were championed by the author of Hebrews because of their great faith.
The second problem with your argument is again, based on ignorance. You say:
Here, you confuse regeneration (which existed even in the Old Testament) with the NT promise that the Holy Spirit would live inside believers. Regeneration has always existed, but the Holy Spirit living inside believers is a "new" gift from God that only pertains to New Testament Christians.
Your mistake is that you confuse the two things and think they are one and the same. Thus, you mistakenly believe that Cornelius wasn't regenerated until the Holy Spirit came to live inside him.
Your third mistake is that you think Calvinists don't believe in free will. Calvinists affirm free will. What they deny is libertarian free will, which is the idea that man is not influenced or enslaved by his fallen, unregenerate nature, when the Bible clearly teaches that he is.
Jesus taught that the type of tree determined the type of fruit it would bear. If Cornelius produced fruit that was pleasing to God...conclusion? What kind of tree was Cornelius?
Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.
That quotation of changing the heart of stone is for the OT saints in the resurrection of their bodies. It only, therefore, applies to those who are justified before God already the saved.That's the point. Until God changes our heart of stone to a heart of flesh, we will not seek him. John 6:65: He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Read a little closer — it was God told Peter that they WERE.The first mistake that the Op makes is in thinking that outward religious works of righteousness is actual righteousness.
Correct, but what God calls righteous, let no man call unrighteous, right? God accepted Cornelius prayers and alms as righteous because Cornelius was still "justified" with God though not yet saved.What man calls righteousness and what God calls righteousness are not the same thing.
Cornelius was a proselyte of "the everlasting gospel" which says that if a man acknowledge God, glorify, and thank Him (Acts 1:21, Rev 14:6, Ro 7:9), that man stands just before God until he realizes his sin against God. Being the son of a Pharisee, Paul would have been in this state from birth until "the commandment came in, sin revived, and I died."Cornelius was obviously a proselyte to the Jewish belief.
Justification can be on 2 levels: 1) Innocence in which the person has not knowingly sinned and, therefore, is still "alive" (Ro 7:9) to God BUT DOES NOT HAVE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. God does not condemn the innocent! 2) Judicially declared not guilty we call this saved because we will be eternally in this state. If calls upon those who know God and know that they have sinned against God willfully to repent turning to Him for forgiveness and salvation.First of all, you confuse justification with the broader term "salvation". The two are not synonymous. You argued:
No sir! We will be rewarded in the final judgment. In fact, some will be saved "so as by fire" have lost all reward because they did not live trusting God though they committed their justification to Christ. Furthermore, in this era of knowledge of the gospel, what saves us if justification with God not sanctification, which is what you are trusting in if you say that salvation awaits the judgment.In Acts 11:14, when it says "and you shall be saved", you are assuming that Peter means "and you shall be justified". The two ideas are not synonymous. We will be saved at the final judgement. That is salvation.
You are confusing salvation with "redemption of the purchased possession" which IS future.But we are justified during our lives. Justification refers to our legal standing before God, counted as guiltless. But we "will be saved" in the future when we are spared from God's wrath at the final judgement.
I agree. There is saved spiritually (eternal life) and there is saved while we live the life of Christ here on this earth (temporal life Ro 5:10, Jn 10:10, etc.). You are counting on salvation of the temporal life for your justification.You mistakenly interchange these concepts because of a shallow and ignorant understanding of how the Bible authors use the word "salvation/saved" and you think that every instance of the word "saved" in the Bible means the same thing. News flash: it doesn't.
So you would be saying that God kept them from being saved because He didn't tell them the gospel of Jesus Christ? Do you not know that there is 1) the everlasting gospel and 2) the gospel of the kingdom that applied to them? Yeah, the latter was repent to God and one's sins would be taken away when Messiah comes. Then, when they would be resurrected into His kingdom (Job 19:25-28), they would believe on Him and be regenerated like we are.Thus, you mistakenly think that Cornelius wasn't justified until he heard the gospel. Even Abraham was justified in God's sight, and Abraham never heard the gospel of Jesus. (And he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness Rom 4:3, Gen 15:6) In fact, Hebrews 11 lists many people who had never heard the gospel of Jesus who were in fact justified, and they were championed by the author of Hebrews because of their great faith.
Actually, it didn't. For the OT saints to be regenerated, they had to die literally and be resurrected by the Spirit literally to earth because Jesus, Himself, had not been resurrected and the sacrifice for sin made for those who died already.Here, you confuse regeneration (which existed even in the Old Testament)
This is just a terrible understanding of the issue. One is not regenerated and indwelt except the Spirit be IN you .. not WITH you. Jesus explains this to His discples in Jn 14:17 where He says the Spirit "dwells with you but shall be in you."...with the NT promise that the Holy Spirit would live inside believers. Regeneration has always existed, but the Holy Spirit living inside believers is a "new" gift from God that only pertains to New Testament Christians.
We have just shown in Cornelius that none of what you say is true. First, there is no description of libertarian free will in scripture and free will is only discussed by example like "choose you this day whom you will serve."Your third mistake is that you think Calvinists don't believe in free will. Calvinists affirm free will. What they deny is libertarian free will, which is the idea that man is not influenced or enslaved by his fallen, unregenerate nature, when the Bible clearly teaches that he is.
His angel, his spirit, did still "always behold the face of God." He was as a child still. Did you go to church as a child, skala? Did you believe that you were a sinner then? Cause as soon as you believe that, you need a Savior. But if not .. God receives your prayers and praises and thanks just like He did Cornelius'.Jesus taught that the type of tree determined the type of fruit it would bear. If Cornelius produced fruit that was pleasing to God...conclusion? What kind of tree was Cornelius?
Nice try .. but no.Sounds like Cornelius was regenerate after all.
No, not at all. The error is in you believing that men are born sinners. Ezek 18:20 shows they are not. Thus, according to Calvinism, all infants who died are in hell this very moment. Shame on you!It seems you are confusing that "no one" doesn't mean, "no one EVER," so you gladly extrapolate that to include, "...if that ain't so, then it ain't so for babies, and Cornelius and Job, etc." This is gross error.
I'm glad you call is "human nature," because that is what it is. The human nature is "programmed," not with sins, but with "instincts" .. one of which is to live to life. There is NOTHING sinful about instincts as we know from studying the animal world. And in humans, the instinct to life draws us to God naturally. Our main problems at birth are 1) we are born into a corrupt world and 2) ignorant of God. This latter is what God resolved in Job and Cornelius such that they already had a relationship with God before salvation.People born from the lineage of Adam the First, have a fallen human nature.
But not irresistibly and not unconditionally. That is "pie in the sky madness!" It is saying that He didn't have to send His Son to die and to be believed upon for salvation!When God takes upon Himself to change a person, he does a thorough, complete and perfect job of it.
Right, there is no inherent "righteousness of God" in man. They are, rather, innocent.The people you think are in innocence, God says have no righteousness.
So let me ask you was that YOUR experience? Or did you go to church through your childhood seeking the love of God? desiring to have eternal life and go to heaven? If not, you are in a minority of folks who grew up in the last generation. But if so, how can you throw around these "no one" statements of the total depravity of man when you, yourself, did what "no one" could do.They are not looking to God or Christ for justification,
Got to love a God like that, don't ya! God chose you in spite of your sin even in spite of the sins you are going to commit. In fact, now you can commit them "in His name," right? Because your life now is all His doing, isn't it.God changes the people He would save, and makes them new creatures that are able to do righteousness from a pure heart, because He had changed them.
Those are pretty words, avid. I am sure you don't know how that works though. Remember when you were unsaved? What told you to do something or not to do something? It was your conscience, right? That's your soul that Ezek 18:20 says dies when you sin rejects most input from God.The Holy Spirit of God is Guide and Comforter to the person in whom He dwells. If there is a temptation, the Holy Spirit gives the grace of God, and peace of God, in the heart of the believer, and he is not taken at the will of the deceiver.
No, not at all. The error is in you believing that men are born sinners.
Thus, according to Calvinism, all infants who died are in hell this very moment.
False. In Calvinism, infants are saved the same way adults are: by the free, unearned grace of God.
It's your view that gets close to heresy by saying since infants are sinless, they are saved due to their own righteousness.
There's a word for that: it's called works-based salvation.
Being a baptist, don't you reject works-salvation? It seems you haven't thought about the logical conclusion of your position very much.
You accept works-salvation for babies, but reject it for adults. Don't you see the inconsistency?
If infants, upon death go to hell, as the argument goes, what sins have they committed other than being born with a sinful nature that comes to us from Adam?
What sins have they committed?
God Bless
Till all are one.
It does .. unless you misinterpret it, right? Which you have. David was using poetic language to declare that his flesh was always sinful, was always going to be sinful .. there was never another way for the flesh in this life to be. Even someone who is saved still has sin in his flesh.Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinfulat birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
This makes everything you post afterward incorrect.
Hi DeaconDean
I don't believe infants necessarily go to hell.
Is your question for skypair?
Really??? You mean by infant baptism? Do you mean all of them? So you would really be saying that YOU were saved as an infant, right? When you knew nothing of God or Christ.False. In Calvinism, infants are saved the same way adults are: by the free, unearned grace of God.
First, it is NOT my saying that they are "saved." They are NOT saved. Neither is it my saying that they are righteous at all merely innocent and God does NOT condemn the innocent with the wicked or as if they are wicked!It's your view that gets close to heresy by saying since infants are sinless, they are saved due to their own righteousness.
Not at all. Ro 4:5 says that believing is NOT works. And what do you do with the scripture "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou SHALT be saved." (Acts 2:21, 16:31, etc.) Not ARE saved SHALL be saved. The work of God in your heart is not even begun until you have believed on Him!There's a word for that: it's called works-based salvation.
No. Don't you see that you have completely mischaracterized what I believe? Baptism doesn't save in either case.You accept works-salvation for babies, but reject it for adults. Don't you see the inconsistency?
Which highlights the flaw in your sotierology, skala, and the error of your "doctrine of the nature of man."Hi DeaconDean
I don't believe infants necessarily go to hell.
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?