What Value has Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[FreeGrace2]

Or we could do it the other way and see if you can demonstrate that a person can come to faith before regeneration using scripture.

I'm sure you do realize, that when I do so, your view is refuted as false.

I dare you, show us in the Bible where it clearly shows us the steps we are to take using free will to have faith in Christ.

I believe you are missing the whole point. All I have to do is show that belief for salvation follows regeneration, not the other way around.

Not what, how. And you should be able to if your position is Christ died for all and people can choose to be saved.

Of course people choose to be saved. If you were drowning and someone reached out for you to grab their hand, that is a choice, my friend. And you'd certainly make that choice.

However, now to prove that belief precedes regeneration.

Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

In this verse, Paul equates the red words with the blue words. The blue words are a clarification of the red words. The red words speak of regeneration. The blue words speak of salvation.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

The blue words here are the exact same words at the end of v.5. And then Paul tells us the "mechanism" of our salvation; which is "through faith".

This proves that faith precedes our salvation.

Consider the ark. It couldn't go "through the water" is there wasn't already water there.

So regeneration and salvation follow faith.

You're welcome.

 

[TibiasDad]

Good Day, Doug

Not sure why you expect to see it there... I think we agree that this would be a systematic overview of evangelism from an Historically reformed prospective and a very effective one- would you agree!



It means that Salvation is all of the Lord's work and His work has a purpose and that purpose does not fail. Only God has the right to determine who His family will be, so I would never ask a question based on that which I do not know, nor assert that in any way I do know.

You may find this helpful as it relates to evangelism.

The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation it is the only effective instrumental means God uses to save sinful men.

If we do not witness and share the gospel will some people not go to heaven?

In Him,

Bill

Thank you, Bill, I appreciate and understand you position. I have no doubt that Calvinists sincerely share the gospel, and I am not meaning to demean anyone. I just think that you must have to ignore, to one degree or another, the fact that you know God has probably decreed this particular person to not be saved. Whereas a non-Calvinistic evangelist, while not knowing if a person will actually believe and be saved, knows that God sincerely wants them saved and will if the person seeks him for such.

The whole picture of salvation is not apparent in the Reformed gospel as it is in the non-reformed. All the steps in the process are fully seen and expressed; believe, confess, repent and you will be saved!

Doug

 

[All Glory To God]

I'm sure you do realize, that when I do so, your view is refuted as false.


I believe you are missing the whole point. All I have to do is show that belief for salvation follows regeneration, not the other way around.


Of course people choose to be saved. If you were drowning and someone reached out for you to grab their hand, that is a choice, my friend. And you'd certainly make that choice.

However, now to prove that belief precedes regeneration.

Eph 2:5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

In this verse, Paul equates the red words with the blue words. The blue words are a clarification of the red words. The red words speak of regeneration. The blue words speak of salvation.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

The blue words here are the exact same words at the end of v.5. And then Paul tells us the "mechanism" of our salvation; which is "through faith".

This proves that faith precedes our salvation.

Consider the ark. It couldn't go "through the water" is there wasn't already water there.

So regeneration and salvation follow faith.

You're welcome.

This is not even close and to be honest I am unsure you understood my question. Of course we need faith but if it is a choice that needs to be exercised by the individual of their own agency,how do they do it? It is fine to tell someone they need Christ as their saviour but without the instructions to go with the commandment what good is that? Or we could have the possibility that indeed man does not have the ability to choose God and that faith is gifted to us for salvation.

 

[5thKingdom]

I just think that you must have to ignore, to one degree or another, the fact that you know God has probably decreed this particular person to not be saved.

Unless the evangelist is believes ALL MEN are "elected" to be saved,
they cannot say "you can be saved".

Whereas a non-Calvinistic evangelist, while not knowing if a person will actually believe and be saved, knows that God sincerely wants them saved and will if the person seeks him for such.

Just to be more precise... let's substitute the words
"wants them to be saved" to "elects them to be saved"...
Does the synergist gospel teach God "elects ALL men" to be saved?
I do not think it does.

The whole picture of salvation is not apparent in the Reformed gospel as it is in the non-reformed. All the steps in the process are fully seen and expressed; believe, confess, repent and you will be saved!
Doug

Of course the POINT is not one of clarity but of accuracy.
Does God "elect" all men to "believe, confess, repent"?
No... we know that is not accurate.


Does God NEED man to assist in the salvation process?


Does the Bible teach a monergistic gospel where GOD decides
who is "elected" to be saved and some men are NEVER MEANT
to be saved (since they were never elect) ... or does the Bible teach
a synergistic gospel where salvation is a "decision" of man?


So... evangelization is NOT a question of what gospel is "clear"
but what Gospel is Biblical.


And, frankly, since you ADMIT that many go to hell, the question
(from an Arminianist position) is WHY did they not make a better
decision - to avoid hell. That is a "boaster gospel" where all the
saved can say "I made the right decision and you made the wrong
decision... why did you not make a good decision like me?")


I realize you do not LIKE to see this reality... but it is reality
for anyone teaching a synergistic gospel were MAN "decides"
to become saved. They can "boast" they made the right decision.


Jim

 

[5thKingdom]

Or we could have the possibility that indeed man does not have the ability to choose God and that faith is gifted to us for salvation.

WOW... does someone actually BELIEVE Ephesians 2 is Biblical?

How rare these days to see FEW on the narrow way to life
when so MANY are on the BROAD WAY to destruction.

 

[5thKingdom]

SOMEONE ELSE SAID:
I dare you, show us in the Bible where it clearly shows us the steps we are to take using free will to have faith in Christ.

Eph 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

The blue words here are the exact same words at the end of v.5. And then Paul tells us the "mechanism" of our salvation; which is "through faith".

This proves that faith precedes our salvation.

But you only tell HALF of the story:
The RED words show WHERE this entire system of salvation
comes from... it is GIFT OF GOD (and not a "decision" of men)


Again you could not be MORE WRONG.
The passage says "not of yourselves" that precludes man
from initiating ANYTHING. Not grace, not faith, not salvation.


The verses teaches (wait for it.....)
THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF REGENERATION BY GRACE
THROUGH FAITHAND NONE OF IT IS THE WORK OF MAN.
(least he should boast)


If MEN "decide" to have faith BEFORE regeneration by grace...
then men can "boast" to the unsaved they should have made
a better decision (like they did). You teach a "boaster's gospel".
That is very clear.


ANYONE teaching faith/belief is generated by DEAD men
before regeneration by grace... is teaching a "boaster's gospel"
and can LEGITIMATELY tell unsaved men they made a BAD decision,
they are clearly not as wise as the boaster.


BTW... you can reply if it makes you "feel" better.
But I am only correcting you, I am not debating you.
The Bible is clear... some can "see" and others cannot "see".
This was all foretold.


Jim

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said:
"I'm sure you do realize, that when I do so, your view is refuted as false.


I believe you are missing the whole point. All I have to do is show that belief for salvation follows regeneration, not the other way around.


Of course people choose to be saved. If you were drowning and someone reached out for you to grab their hand, that is a choice, my friend. And you'd certainly make that choice.

However, now to prove that belief precedes regeneration."

Then I proved my point with Eph 2:5 and 8.

This is not even close and to be honest I am unsure you understood my question. Of course we need faith but if it is a choice that needs to be exercised by the individual of their own agency,how do they do it?

Do you admit that the Bible clearly teaches that faith precedes regeneration? If you are not willing to admit that, then what is the use of continuing discussion?

It is fine to tell someone they need Christ as their saviour but without the instructions to go with the commandment what good is that?

"instructions"??? Huh? Are you suggesting that a person "needs instruction" in order to believe something?

However, if you are asking HOW a person believes, then look no farther than Rom 10:10 - For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

So that's where belief comes from; our hearts. If you don't know how to believe something, then I'm sorry that I can't be of further help.

God gave mankind a conscience with which to determine right and wrong. If you can't determine right from wrong (and ALL cultures have norms and standards), that would be a problem.

Or we could have the possibility that indeed man does not have the ability to choose God and that faith is gifted to us for salvation.

Nonsense. The so-called "gift of faith" is a noun. That means it isn't an action, like believing in something. Yes, God did give mankind the gift of faith. But man either believes (accepts) the gift or he does not (rejects).

And that is God's plan. So, when a person believes, God is pleased to save him/her.

1 Cor 1:21 actually says so.

 

[FreeGrace2]

SOMEONE ELSE SAID:
I dare you, show us in the Bible where it clearly shows us the steps we are to take using free will to have faith in Christ.

But you only tell HALF of the story:

Then you didn't read all of my post.

The RED words show WHERE this entire system of salvation
comes from... it is GIFT OF GOD (and not a "decision" of men)

You are missing the whole point. Salvation is not a decision. It is a state of being, that God gives to those who believe.

Again you could not be MORE WRONG.
The passage says "not of yourselves" that precludes man
from initiating ANYTHING. Not grace, not faith, not salvation.

The phrase "not of yourselves" refers to the fact that man cannot save himself. But, man certainly CAN receive the gift that God offers.

If you were drowning and someone was able and did reach out a hand for you to grab onto, would you crow that you saved yourself by accepting the hand that pulled you to safety? Of course not. That would be absurd.

The verses teaches (wait for it.....)
THE WHOLE SYSTEM OF REGENERATION BY GRACE
THROUGH FAITHAND NONE OF IT IS THE WORK OF MAN.
(least he should boast)

Exactly what I believe.

If MEN "decide" to have faith BEFORE regeneration by grace...
then men can "boast" to the unsaved they should have made
a better decision (like they did). You teach a "boaster's gospel".
That is very clear.

This is absurd and simply twists the verse totally out of what it teaches.

Where would you get the idea that man "decides" to "have faith" before regeneration?

Do you decide to believe something BEFORE you believe something? Just know, that is very weird.

ANYONE teaching faith/belief is generated by DEAD men
before regeneration by grace... is teaching a "boaster's gospel"
and can LEGITIMATELY tell unsaved men they made a BAD decision,
they are clearly not as wise as the boaster.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. God created mankind with a conscience with which to evaluate right and wrong. Rom 2:14,15 indicates this.

BTW... you can reply if it makes you "feel" better.

Quite snarky, I see. I don't post for feelings. I post to correct false doctrines.

But I am only correcting you, I am not debating you.

You haven't corrected anyone.

The Bible is clear... some can "see" and others cannot "see".
This was all foretold.

Sure, go ahead and hide behind that old saw.

 

[Butch5]

A theological treatise has every bearing on saved people.

I gave you the passages. They state plainly who Paul is addressing.

Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (Rom. 2:17 KJV)

Behold, thou art called a Jew. That is the Jews. The Gentiles were not called Jews. Not sure why you're
having difficulty with this.

Only part of the epistle. The majority of Romans was to educate saved people (Christians) on what Christianity is and how to function.

A portion to the Jews and a portion to the Gentiles.

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.(Rom. 11:13-14 KJV)

For I speak to you Gentiles. He states plainly that he is addressing the Gentiles. Until you begin to make this distinction you will never understand the Scriptures.

I said:
"Well, Israel from the OT. NOT Israel now. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the NT."

I have found at least 7 different examples of those described as being elect. Israel's only 1 of the examples.

You said:
"For instance, chapter 4, Abraham, our father according to the flesh. That's Israel."

So I said, "so what?"

And you responded:

As I said, it shows he was addressing the Jews.

No, Paul was reminding saved people who their "spiritual father" was; Abe. Paul wasn't addressing Jews specifically.

In fact, Paul was pointing out the fact that Abe is the father of those who believe, both Jew and Gentile.

v.11b - So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, (Gentiles) in order that righteousness might be credited to them.
v.13 - It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.
v.16 - Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.
v.17 - As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.
v.18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

He didn't say anything here about a spiritual father. Again, you fail to differentiate between who is being spoken of and spoken to. He is speaking of Gentiles in the passage you quoted. However, he is speaking to Jews. If you look at the beginning of chapter 4 he makes it crystal clear.

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (Rom. 4:1 KJV)

Our father as pertaining to the flesh is not Gentiles. The Gentiles were not the flesh offspring of Abraham, the Jews were. He is addressing Jews.

That was my point. You said Paul was addressing Jews.

He was. He said so.

 

[TibiasDad]

John 3:16 says God loves ''the world'' not all humans so that is a false claim. And even if he did loved all people and then sends some to hell that would mean this God is telling lies. How can he love them whilst sending them to hell?

1) Every standard lexicon, including BADG, says that "Komos", world, in John 3:16 means the whole of mankind!

2) A parent loves all his children regardless of how the children return that love. It is a misdirected meaning of love that says that love, even God's love, is only real if it is successful. For my part, love is the motivation of God's action, more so than the effectual element. In other words, God's love for the world, for all mankind, sends Jesus into the world (the dwelling place of mankind), but it is Christ's death and resurrection that effects the atonement and the cancellation of sin and death. So God's love was completely effective in what it did, but our reaction to it is not part of the scope of love.

3) God doesn't send them to hell, the person who rejects Christ sends himself to hell of his own accord.

Acts is a hard determination verse ''26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us

God determines our lives nations and will be the driving force that moves us onto faith,because of predetermined gift of faith. How could you possible read scripture like this and see libertarian free will. It actually says determined.

1) The question is not does God determine some things, but what is not determined in vs 26, is man's choices and volition. So I am just as comfortable with the specific determinations listed as you are.

2) The determination has a stated purpose as well, "God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him..." (Acts 17:27) His determining was meant to induce mankind "seeking" and "perhaps reach out for him and find him." So it wasn't that part of mankind would definitely seek him and reach for him and find him, but that all humanity might seek him, and perhaps reach out for him and find him!

3) The final clause of vs 27, "though he is not very far from any one of us" is, from my perspective, a death knell for a couple of points of Calvinistic thought. a) the proximity of God's salvation is "not very far" from mankind, meaning the concept of predestined reprobates with no proximity to salvation is precluded, and b), that this is true in relation to ἑνὸς ἑκάστου, "any one" of us. Calvinist that I have dealt with over at CARM, have often demanded any verse that says that all mankind means every single individual; this one does! So limited atonement is vanquished in my mind, because Paul was telling every single one of the Athenians that God was very close to any and every one of them and wanted all of them to reach out and find him. That also means that grace is not irresistible, for not all the Athenians that heard the message believed, but some did.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Good Day, Doug

Would you like to assert your own??

They are clearly defined... now you may dislike the definitions and that is ok but that does not change them and their normal usage.

Dictonary.com

the Calvinist doctrine that humankind's entire nature, including its reason, is corrupt or sinful as a result of the Fall and that people are therefore completely dependent on God for regeneration.

a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
a person who has supreme power or authority.

Now not assumed but rather documented.

Here is a secondary source you might consider: Dictionary of Theology | CARM.org

In Him,

Bill

Hi Bill,

This is where we begin to shift from pure biblical meaning into a philosophical meaning. δεσπότης is used 10 times in the NT (not sure about the LXX) and is, I think the strongest word for Sovereign. There are other words used for the concept, but I think δεσπότης is sufficient because I have no problem with this term, nor do I object to your quoted definition, "a person who has supreme power or authority."

My personal definition of sovereign, "one whose authority and capacity cannot be overthrown by any other party or force" (a more formal expression), or my more street speak definition which is "God don't play by our rules!" would not conflict with anything you've said. Essentially, and where I think I would begin to differ with you, is that God is free to do whatever he wants at any time save that which would deny his being and character, or that which he has stated that he would do. This means, stated positively, that God can allow man to have an independent choice in relation to his own life choices. Stated negatively, that God doesn't have to impose all authority over all things at all times. He has such authority that he can allow man to have freedom of volition and yet will still accomplish his ultimate will without fail.

The flaw that I find in the Calvinistic philosophical argument of God's Sovereignty is that God cannot be Sovereign if he doesn't control and do absolutely everything! That it is monergism or bust if God is truly sovereign! That is not true, for the only thing he needs to be to be Sovereign, is to be absolutely unbeatable by any other force outside of himself, and absolutely wiser than any other being. He doesn't have to meticulously control all things in a predetermanitive manner to be Sovereign, and nothing in scripture says that he must!

As for TD, this means that sin has completely corrupted every part of man's capacities, and has totally alienated man's spiritual standing with God. Thus, man's actions are incapable of the perfections demanded by God's holiness. This in itself is all that is necessary to bring every man down in sin. Man's understanding is indeed corrupted as well, but God's Sovereign power is able to overcome this at will. This is the light that shines on all mankind. (John 1:4-5, 9) God enables us, merely by his presence in the gospel to be able to sufficiently grasp the truth of our condition in God's eyes.

Doug

 

[5thKingdom]

Then I proved my point with Eph 2:5 and 8.

Eph 2:5
Even when we [the elect] were DEAD in sins,
[God] hath quickened us [the elect] together with Christ,
(by [the] grace [of God] ye [the elect] are saved)


You cannot hope to understand the MEANING of any passage
when you cannot discern the CONTEXT of that passage.


You are actually arguing a DEAD man can make a "decision" to
believe what ONLY THE REGENERATED ("the quickened")
can believe... amazing.


Someone "quickened us" (the elect) when we were DEAD.
Now WHO do you think showed that "grace" that "saved" us (the elect)?


And you actually use THIS PASSAGE to try to show that regeneration
FOLLOWS/COMES AFTER "we" (the elect) have been "quickened"?
Absolutely amazing.

And that is God's plan. So, when a person believes,
God is pleased to save him/her.

And there you have it... the "boaster's gospel"
John was so smart to "believe" and get eternal life
Sam was not as smart as John... he must suffer forever.
John tells Sam... you should have done what I did, you fool.
That is the "boaster's gospel".


The only question is WHY do synergists who trust in THEIR
"decision" never want to admit their action saved them?
Because they KNOW (deep inside) that's just heresy.
And yet they CANNOT depend on God to "decide".
What a terrible place to be.

1 Cor 1:21 actually says so.

No... you WISH the verse shows "believing" is man's decision.
But THE TEXT shows no such thing... you must ADD that into it.
Are you allowed to ADD to the Bible?


(LITV) For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness
of preaching to save the ones believing.


(YLT) for, seeing in the wisdom of God the world through the
wisdom knew not God, it did please God through the foolishness
of the preaching to save those believing.


You should just ADMIT that you teach a "boaster's gospel"
that says MAN decides he is elect (God does not choose men)
You should not be ashamed to admit that you cannot DEPEND
on election/salvation being the sole "decision" of God.


Only the elect can take great pleasure in knowing their election
was the sole decision of God (based ONLY on His Good Pleasure
and NOT on anything we would do)... THAT is what "faith" looks like.


But FEW find such a narrow way into eternal life.
MOST follow a BROAD WAY pretending THEY "decided" to be elect.
It's all very sad.... but it was all foretold from the beginning....
and is now fulfilled as 95% of Christians think they "decided"
to be the elect.


Some (most) are NEVER MEANT to be saved...
even though they sincerely think otherwise.


These are called the unsaved "tares/goats" in the church,
sown by Satan and destined to the same fire as Satan [Mat 25:41].
It is just not possible for unsaved "tares", sown by Satan,
to "decide" to become saved "wheat" sown by God.
But "boasters" preach that heresy all day long.
As was foretold from the beginning.


.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I gave you the passages. They state plainly who Paul is addressing.
Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, (Rom. 2:17 KJV)

Behold, thou art called a Jew. That is the Jews. The Gentiles were not called Jews. Not sure why you're having difficulty with this.

How about starting where Paul started his epistle, ok?

1:7 - To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

What part of "all in Rome" are YOU having difficulty in grasping? Of course Paul addressed the Jews in Rome, but the congregation obviously had many more Gentiles than Jews. Everyone knows that.

A portion to the Jews and a portion to the Gentiles.

OK, let's just cut to the chase here. Was Paul's message different between them, and if so, what exactly was so different?

13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.(Rom. 11:13-14 KJV)

For I speak to you Gentiles. He states plainly that he is addressing the Gentiles. Until you begin to make this distinction you will never understand the Scriptures.

So, what's the significant difference? Were Jews supposed to live somehow differently than Gentiles?

He didn't say anything here about a spiritual father.

Since you either didn't read any of ch 4, or simply didn't grasp what Paul wrote, Abraham is described as the "father of those who believe". 4:11 That's what I meant, and those who are familiar with ch 4 would easily understand that.

Again, you fail to differentiate between who is being spoken of and spoken to.

Claims and charges are easy to make. Prove your opinion, please.

He is speaking of Gentiles in the passage you quoted. However, he is speaking to Jews. If you look at the beginning of chapter 4 he makes it crystal clear.

Unless you can show clearly that his message to Jews was to live differently than Gentiles, you've got no point at all.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said: ↑
Then I proved my point with Eph 2:5 and 8.

Eph 2:5
Even when we [the elect] were DEAD in sins,
[God] hath quickened us [the elect] together with Christ,
(by [the] grace [of God] ye [the elect] are saved)

NT believers are elect. Those who believe. Eph 1"19 says so. But it seems you love to get the cart before the horse.

You are actually arguing a DEAD man can make a "decision" to
believe what ONLY THE REGENERATED ("the quickened")
can believe... amazing.

Maybe you missed it, but a spiritually dead person CAN most certainly make decisions. I have even seem some of them mow their lawns, and drive cars. An I'm not exaggerating one bit! So don't give me this tired old saw about what "dead men" can't do.

I'm not talking about physically dead people, which it seems you are.

Someone "quickened us" (the elect) when we were DEAD.
Now WHO do you think showed that "grace" that "saved" us (the elect)?

I've already proven from v.5 and v.8 that both salvation and regeneration follow faith. You've done nothing to refute that.

And you actually use THIS PASSAGE to try to show that regeneration
FOLLOWS/COMES AFTER "we" (the elect) have been "quickened"?
Absolutely amazing.

It is really amazing that you aren't comprehending what is so clear.

And there you have it... the "boaster's gospel"
John was so smart to "believe" and get eternal life
Sam was not as smart as John... he must suffer forever.
John tells Sam... you should have done what I did, you fool.
That is the "boaster's gospel".

This is simply delusional. Would you boast if you were drowning and someone reached out to you and you grabbed their arm so they could pull you out of the water? That's basically what you seem to think about believing for salvation.

Unless God forces (causes) the belief, the believer can boast about what they believed.

That is plain nuts. The salvation is from God. All man can do is receive the gift.

Do you believe you can boast about a priceless gift that someone handed to you? Or do you praise the giver of the gift?

The only question is WHY do synergists who trust in THEIR
"decision" never want to admit their action saved them?
Because they KNOW (deep inside) that's just heresy.
And yet they CANNOT depend on God to "decide".
What a terrible place to be.

This is pathetic. Anyone who 'trusts in their decision' is an idiot. I sure don't. My trust is solely in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Are you able to understand this difference?

I don't trust in WHAT I believe or that I have believed. I fully trust in WHOM I believe. God has spoken, and I believe what He says.

So tell me, how can I boast in any of that?

No... you WISH the verse shows "believing" is man's decision.

OK, so who's making all YOUR own decisions of what to believe, if they don't come from yourself? You're just a puppet talking.

But THE TEXT shows no such thing... you must ADD that into it.
Are you allowed to ADD to the Bible?

I'll tell you what the test DOESN'T SAY. It doesn't say anywhere that God is the source or cause of believing the gospel. And you still haven't proven your claim.

(LITV) For since in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom
did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness
of preaching to save the ones believing.

(YLT) for, seeing in the wisdom of God the world through the
wisdom knew not God, it did please God through the foolishness
of the preaching to save those believing.

Since you seem to be quite unaware, "those believing" means the same thing as "those who believe". So what's your point with these specific translations?

You should just ADMIT that you teach a "boaster's gospel"
that says MAN decides he is elect (God does not choose men)
You should not be ashamed to admit that you cannot DEPEND
on election/salvation being the sole "decision" of God.

It's really hard to believe that you are serious here. Where did I ever even suggest that my view is that "man decides he is elect". That is really pathetic.

The Bible clearly tells us that God is the chooser. But what you totally fail to understand is that election is for service, not salvation. But go ahead, and try to make your case.

Some (most) are NEVER MEANT to be saved...
even though they sincerely think otherwise.

Yeah, sure. So where do you find the words "never meant to be saved" anywhere in the Bible?

 

[Butch5]

How about starting where Paul started his epistle, ok?

1:7 - To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

What part of "all in Rome" are YOU having difficulty in grasping? Of course Paul addressed the Jews in Rome, but the congregation obviously had many more Gentiles than Jews. Everyone knows that.

Again, as I said, at 2:17 he turns his attention to the Jews. He Carries this discourse with them through 11:13 where he begins to address the Gentiles.

OK, let's just cut to the chase here. Was Paul's message different between them, and if so, what exactly was so different?

What his message was has no bearing on who he was addressing. Let's stay with the issue.

So, what's the significant difference? Were Jews supposed to live somehow differently than Gentiles?

What's the significance? It's everything. If he's addressing Jews and he says you. He means Jews, not Gentiles. That's why so many get it wrong. They read it as he's addressing Christians and they apply it to themselves. They don't take into account that he is addressing Jewish Christians. That's the whole point of saying, 'behold thou art called a Jew'. They were all Christians. He makes a distinction when he's addressing the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. A large portion of Roman's is used to support Reformed Theology, or Calvinism. My point is that what is being used to support Reformed Theology, doesn't because it's addressed to and is about the Jews. In Romans 8 where Paul writes of those God foreknew. He's not writing about people who would believe the Gospel. He's writing about people God had known in the past. The Jews. When you understand who he is addressing it all makes sense and it doesn't support Reformed Theology. That's the significance.

Since you either didn't read any of ch 4, or simply didn't grasp what Paul wrote, Abraham is described as the "father of those who believe". 4:11 That's what I meant, and those who are familiar with ch 4 would easily understand that.

I know what you meant. I was simply pointing out that you were adding to the text. You were drawing an inference.

Claims and charges are easy to make. Prove your opinion, please.

I've already proven it. I gave you chapter and verse.

Unless you can show clearly that his message to Jews was to live differently than Gentiles, you've got no point at all.

I never said anything about his message. You brought that up.

 

[BBAS 64]

Thank you, Bill, I appreciate and understand you position. I have no doubt that Calvinists sincerely share the gospel, and I am not meaning to demean anyone. I just think that you must have to ignore, to one degree or another, the fact that you know God has probably decreed this particular person to not be saved. Whereas a non-Calvinistic evangelist, while not knowing if a person will actually believe and be saved, knows that God sincerely wants them saved and will if the person seeks him for such.

Good Day, Doug

Really God's decrees are His they serve His purpose which I know can not be thwarted. I am told to preaching Gospel because it is the only power unto salvation.

Just to get this out there I like Prince of Preachers contend that Calvinism is just a nick-name for the gospel.

The Gospel is preached regardless of whether the person is saved or not has nothing to do with me, or the person it is God that saves and God alone he has no dependencies or hurdles he can not over come.

You say God really wants them saved ... ok then why is he unable, or unwilling to do so? What is it that stops God from getting that which he desires?

Just to be clear... there is none that seeks Jesus is the seeker he finds we do not.

Here is the Gospel in a nut shell:

he whole picture of salvation is not apparent in the Reformed gospel as it is in the non-reformed. All the steps in the process are fully seen and expressed; believe, confess, repent and you will be saved!

Doug

Faith is Granted...
Confession is made out of the abundance of the heart, A heart that is wicked will never confess it is unable.
A man that loves Darkness, will never come to the light because he hate it. His mind is set on wickedness continually.
Repentance is Grated.

Salvation is all of God, for his purposes and for his glory!

He adopts his children
He gives them to Christ
He removes their heart of stone
He gives them a heart of flesh
He puts His Spirit in them
He causes them to walk in His ways, and obey his statues
He makes them His own, and he becomes their God
He grants them Faith
He grants them repentance
He declares them Just
Christ dies for them
Christ turns away the just Wrath of God against them
Christ does the will of the Father and raises them up on the last day
Christ looses none of them
Christ mediates peace between them and God
Christ is their righteousness
Christ transfers them from the darkness to light
Christ intercedes on their behalf
Christ is their High priest
Christ knows them, and calls them by name



IN HIm,

Bill

 

[FreeGrace2]

Again, as I said, at 2:17 he turns his attention to the Jews. He Carries this discourse with them through 11:13 where he begins to address the Gentiles.

That's not important.

What his message was has no bearing on who he was addressing. Let's stay with the issue.

What? Of course Paul's message is the issue. Why else would he write to the church at Rome?

What's the significance? It's everything. If he's addressing Jews and he says you. He means Jews, not Gentiles. That's why so many get it wrong. They read it as he's addressing Christians and they apply it to themselves.

So you mistakenly believe that he wrote to Christians and Jews (non-Christians) then. Wow. You couldn't be more wrong.

They don't take into account that he is addressing Jewish Christians.

Since this seems to important to you, there must be a reason and significance for his "message to saved Jews" vs his "message to saved Gentiles", yet you claim that isn't the issue. Of course it is.

That's the whole point of saying, 'behold thou art called a Jew'. They were all Christians. He makes a distinction when he's addressing the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians.

OK, let's go with that. Paul makes a distinction between Jew and Gentile but you CAN'T make a distinction in his message to each group. What's up with that?

A large portion of Roman's is used to support Reformed Theology, or Calvinism. My point is that what is being used to support Reformed Theology, doesn't because it's addressed to and is about the Jews. In Romans 8 where Paul writes of those God foreknew. He's not writing about people who would believe the Gospel. He's writing about people God had known in the past. The Jews. When you understand who he is addressing it all makes sense and it doesn't support Reformed Theology. That's the significance.

Then you aren't aware of "replacement theology" is. That God supposedly replaced Israel with the Church. It's just a bunch of hooey, but since Calvinists do not properly understand election, their confusion drives them further deeper and deeper.

I never said anything about his message. You brought that up.

If the difference between his message to Jews from the Gentiles isn't important, then why is any of Romans important?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Good Day, Doug

Really God's decrees are His they serve His purpose which I know can not be thwarted. I am told to preaching Gospel because it is the only power unto salvation.

How is the gospel the power unto salvation if one believes that salvation is by election? Wouldn't that make election to salvation the power?

Just to get this out there I like Prince of Preachers contend that Calvinism is just a nick-name for the gospel.

Not an accurate one.

The Gospel is preached regardless of whether the person is saved or not has nothing to do with me, or the person it is God that saves and God alone he has no dependencies or hurdles he can not over come.

This just sidesteps the whole issue. If God chose unconditionally who will believe, then the gospel just ain't that important. Because of course, those chosen will automatically believe the gospel.

You say God really wants them saved

No, the Bible says so. 1 Tim 2:3-6 says so clearly. And Titus 2:11 says the grace of God offers salvation to everyone.

... ok then why is he unable, or unwilling to do so?

You are simply unwilling to (refuse) to understand that God has given humanity the choice of what to believe. Since you won't believe that, there is no other answer for you.

What is it that stops God from getting that which he desires?

Nothing. He set up the plan. And He sticks with His plan.

Why can't Calvinsts understand that God can obligate Himself, and want something even knowing that man's free will can choose differently?

Just to be clear... there is none that seeks Jesus is the seeker he finds we do not.

Of course He is the Seeker. That's WHY He died for all.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi Bill,

This is where we begin to shift from pure biblical meaning into a philosophical meaning. δεσπότης is used 10 times in the NT (not sure about the LXX) and is, I think the strongest word for Sovereign. There are other words used for the concept, but I think δεσπότης is sufficient because I have no problem with this term, nor do I object to your quoted definition, "a person who has supreme power or authority."

My personal definition of sovereign, "one whose authority and capacity cannot be overthrown by any other party or force" (a more formal expression), or my more street speak definition which is "God don't play by our rules!" would not conflict with anything you've said. Essentially, and where I think I would begin to differ with you, is that God is free to do whatever he wants at any time save that which would deny his being and character, or that which he has stated that he would do. This means, stated positively, that God can allow man to have an independent choice in relation to his own life choices. Stated negatively, that God doesn't have to impose all authority over all things at all times. He has such authority that he can allow man to have freedom of volition and yet will still accomplish his ultimate will without fail.

The flaw that I find in the Calvinistic philosophical argument of God's Sovereignty is that God cannot be Sovereign if he doesn't control and do absolutely everything! That it is monergism or bust if God is truly sovereign! That is not true, for the only thing he needs to be to be Sovereign, is to be absolutely unbeatable by any other force outside of himself, and absolutely wiser than any other being. He doesn't have to meticulously control all things in a predetermanitive manner to be Sovereign, and nothing in scripture says that he must!

Good Day, Doug

I contend that man is never free with in his own violation. Man yes is a volitional creature and does have the freedom of choice, but those choices are not free as they are impacted by things that man can not control. His choices are dependent on that which he desires as well as the options that are possible and as such can not be considered in any way free.

Never said God must but will contend that scripture teaches God does.

As for TD, this means that sin has completely corrupted every part of man's capacities, and has totally alienated man's spiritual standing with God. Thus, man's actions are incapable of the perfections demanded by God's holiness. This in itself is all that is necessary to bring every man down in sin. Man's understanding is indeed corrupted as well, but God's Sovereign power is able to overcome this at will. This is the light that shines on all mankind. (John 1:4-5, 9) God enables us, merely by his presence in the gospel to be able to sufficiently grasp the truth of our condition in God's eyes.

Doug

So you would admit that if God wills he alone can overcome the effects of depravity (bring man down is sin). Like a slave to sin?

Lets look at this very closely:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

God enables us where?

We see here the receivers, the believers are born by the will of God alone, and had nothing to do with them what so ever.

If we are enabled by the will of God as a result being born again, then we agree. But those own are not by the will of God born again are still not enabled.

Agreed?

In Him,

Bill

 

[5thKingdom]

5thKingdom said: ↑

Eph 2:5
Even when we [the elect] were DEAD in sins,
[God] hath quickened us [the elect] together with Christ,
(by [the] grace [of God] ye [the elect] are saved)


You are actually arguing a DEAD man can make a "decision" to
believe what ONLY THE REGENERATED ("the quickened")
can believe... amazing.


Someone "quickened us" (the elect) when we were DEAD.
Now WHO do you think showed that "grace" that "saved" us
(the elect) when we were spiritually DEAD?


And you actually use THIS PASSAGE to try to show that regeneration FOLLOWS/COMES AFTER "we" (the elect)
have been "quickened" (regenerated)? Absolutely amazing.

FreeGrace2 said: ↑

NT believers are elect. Those who believe. Eph 1"19 says so. But it seems you love to get the cart before the horse.

You used Ephesians 2:8-9 as your PROOF text.
I showed HOW and WHY your proof text does NOT prove
what you claim.. so now you want to DEFLECT to another text.
Stick with the TEXT you argued before deflecting to anothers.


The question is clear:
Does Eph 2:8-9 teach regeneration FOLLOWS after we
(dead men) are "quickened"... and WHO "quickens" us?

-OR-

Do we (DEAD) men "decide" to believe BEFORE we are "quickened"?
This is not an unclear question, nor is it a hard question to answer
from the Bible.

Maybe you missed it, but a spiritually dead person CAN most certainly make decisions. I have even seem some of them mow their lawns, and drive cars. An I'm not exaggerating one bit! So don't give me this tired old saw about what "dead men" can't do.

No... it is YOU that miss the point.
A spiritually DEAD person has the "free will" in SECULAR matters.
They can choose to wear white socks or black socks. However,
there is NO SCRIPTURE that says they can "quicken" themselves
and NO SCRIPTURE that says they can "decide" to become elect.


When you PRETEND to not know the difference between "free will"
in SECULAR matters (which I have never disputed) you are only
PRETENDING... because we are discussing SPIRITUAL MATTERS.
You intentionally CONFLATE the two separate issues in order
to save fact. Nothing more.

I'm not talking about physically dead people, which it seems you are.

How silly. I am obviously talking about men physically alive
and "quickened" from their spiritual death. I find it very hard
to believe you do not understand what I said... I NEVER SPOKE
about a physical death or resurrection. You already know that.
And Ephesians 2 is not talking about physical death either.

I've already proven from v.5 and v.8 that both salvation and regeneration follow faith. You've done nothing to refute that.

Eph 2:5
Even when we [the elect] were DEAD in sins,
[God] hath quickened us [the elect] together with Christ,
(by [the] grace [of God] ye [the elect] are saved)


You are actually arguing a DEAD man can make a "decision" to
believe what ONLY THE REGENERATED ("the quickened")
can believe... amazing.


Someone "quickened us" (the elect) when we were DEAD.
Now WHO do you think showed that "grace" that "saved" us
(the elect)?


And you actually use THIS PASSAGE to try to show that regeneration FOLLOWS/COMES AFTER "we" (the elect)
have been "quickened"? Absolutely amazing.

It is really amazing that you aren't comprehending what is so clear.

You should not embarrass yourself by PRETENDING that this
understanding is MY IDEA. This has been the teaching of those
preaching a monergistic Gospel for almost 2000 years. So clearly
it's NOT "so clear" if Saints have refuted your "boaster's gospel"
since the days when Jesus walked the earth.


Do you not know ANY church history?
Do you actually think this is a NEW conversation?
And what do you think the "boaster's gospel" is...
if not that MAN DECIDES he is elect because
of a good "decision" he made?

This is simply delusional. Would you boast if you were drowning and someone reached out to you and you grabbed their arm so they could pull you out of the water? That's basically what you seem to think about believing for salvation.

That is a terrible analogy because you speak of a man who is
(a) alive and (b) helps in his salvation. But we are talking about
a SCRIPTURE that is saying (a) the man is a DEAD MAN who is
"quickened" (by God's regeneration) without doing anything.


A better analogy is a man is DEAD... but God "quickens" him to life
without man doing anything... how can he do anything, being DEAD.
Remember it is the TEXT that says the man is DEAD (not me).


So you can PRETEND your analogy is "basically what I seem
to think"... but you are just pretending to yourself. I have been
very clear what the BIBLE SAYS (and I believe what the Bible says)

This is pathetic. Anyone who 'trusts in their decision' is an idiot. I sure don't. My trust is solely in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Are you able to understand this difference?

No... you are pretending again.
Are you now ADMITTING men cannot "decide" to believe
until AFTER they have been regenerated ("quickened")?
I don't think you are admitting that Biblical Truth.


Your "trust" is in the fact that YOU DECIDED to "believe"
and THAT "decision" saved you. That is a "boaster's gospel"
because the Gospel of the Bible (see Eph 2) is that the elect
are "quickened" while DEAD and unable to "decide" to become
alive ("quickened"). Regeneration precedes "believing".


You preach a "boaster's gospel" that says MAN decides to become
elect by "believing" BEFORE he is "quickened" (regenerated).


The Bible teaches that God decides who He will elect and He
"quickens" them while they are spiritually DEAD and incapable
of doing any spiritual good.

I don't trust in WHAT I believe or that I have believed. I fully trust in WHOM I believe. God has spoken, and I believe what He says.
So tell me, how can I boast in any of that?

No... you preach you "believe/have faith" BEFORE REGENERATION
(before God "quickens" you). That is what you teach...
and that is the DEFINITION of a "boaster's gospel".


Of course you could prove me wrong in 1 minute.
Just say that NO MAN can "believe" until AFTER God has
already "quickened" them (regenerated them).


Say REGENERATION always precedes belief/faith...
Can you say that?


Jim
.