What's Wrong With Reformed Theology/Soteriology?

[tdidymas]

Ephesians 1:13 makes it clear that after you heard the Word of Truth and after you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit.

They don't know what they are saying because they haven't studied all of scripture.

It's only what they think fits there narrative that matters. How many holes are in that?

It says "sealed," not "born again." You seem to think that your opinion about this one verse is "all of scripture." But I say it is you that refuse to accept some scriptural teaching because you refuse to ask the question "could I be wrong about this?"
TD

 

[bling]

It's a lot more than this. It says that sin is inherited.

What scripture are you using to support that idea?

The idea that people are created at birth the same as Adam and Eve in sinlessness is nonsense. If you observe children growing up, they have to be taught to do right. But they don't have to be taught to do wrong, since they do that by nature. Therefore, every person has a nature inclined to sin, as clearly taught in Rom. 5:12. Babies may be "sinless" because they simply aren't capable of committing acts of sin, and God saves them because of His mercy, not because they deserve it by reason of personal righteousness or innocence.

We have to start with conception, so how do a few cells sin?

I do not see them doing any sinning in the way babies act.

Do babies have to be taught to love their mother?

Why is it “nonsense” to believe a baby is born innocent, crying is healthy, since they are going through pain?

I see a seeming contradiction in your theology, since you feel God’s mercy should save the innocent baby incapable of sinning, but must condemn to hell those incapable of not sinning?

People are righteously judged because they are in rebellion against God. Do you think that Satan has the ability to repent and trust in Christ?

There comes a time in the sinners life, which only God can know when it happened, that the sinner will never accept God’s charity as charity, since everything has already been tried which would cause him/her to repent he/she will not ever repent so takes on a lessor objective.

Satan was in the spirit already, seen God, and knew he was Loved by God unconditionally unselfishly and sacrificially. Satan, of his own free will, refused God’s Love which he fully understood and desired to be loved for who he was. There is nothing more God could do to change satan that had not already been done, so satan cannot change.

If people are in bondage to Satan's will, then they can't repent, and don't even want to. This is why they are culpable. The trouble with claiming that God is unjust in condemning those who refuse to repent (because they can't) is the humanistic assumption that man in his natural state is righteous enough to make righteous choices. So the reasoning is, if man can't make a righteous choice (to believe and obey), then he isn't culpable for his sin. But that is bad logic because it's calling God a liar (that man isn't totally sinful), and judging God (that He isn't just for condemning individuals incapable of pleasing Him). If that were the case, then Satan couldn't be justly condemned, because he is incapable of obeying God's commands, as implied by Christ in His dissertation on him in John 8 - "there is no truth in him." Therefore I say that your argument is a straw man.
TD

We, by our own free will, chose to be satan’s children, and our seeking the pleasures of sin for at least a season hold us to satan, but fighting God and His Love is hard.

I am not saying they have the power to become children of God while they are sinners.

I do not “assume” sinful man can make some noble, honorable, worthy and righteous choice to follow God, but man can for unrighteous selfish reasons be willing to accept undeserved charity. You always seem to assume, I am say man can do something worthy.

We agree all mature adults have sinned, so sinning or not sinning is not the issue, but I am pointing out just being willing to accept or not accepting God’s forgiveness of our sins is a huge issue and determines man’s eternal fate. Being willing is not some great work and is not a work at all by the Biblical definition of work.

Are you saying satan did not make a free will choice?

 

[tdidymas]

“Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:34-35‬ ‭NASB‬‬

God not having partiality in all of scripture has to do with what man is naturally partial about: race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. This is what God is not partial about. To claim that God is "partial" in that sense when He decides to predestine some to salvation is a false conclusion.
TD

 

[BNR32FAN]

I disagree with you on this matter. Peter is writing to the church. Note it says "patient toward you," meaning those people in the churches who he is writing to. The implication is that God wishes none of them to perish. To bring in unbelievers into this context doesn't fit the context. I do realize that your interpretation of this verse is common and traditional, but it is simply wrong because it doesn't follow correct hermeneutics.


Your objection here doesn't support your idea that Christians aren't predestined. I don't see reformed theology denying that God has patience with everyone.


This is one single verse that Arminians like to quote because it appears to be a stand-alone statement. But let me point to other scriptures which indicate that Arminians might not be fully understanding what the apostle is trying to teach in this statement.
1. Jesus gave his life as a ransom "for many" - not all in this context.
2. Jesus blood "purchased men from every tribe, tongue, and nation" - not all.

So then, what if "all men" does not refer to every person on earth? What if it refers to all nations, all kinds of people? It would fit the context, if we understand that Timothy was a Jew and very possibly had a prejudice against gentiles. You could claim that my idea is just speculation, but so is yours. Therefore, you can't base a whole soteriology on this one verse of scripture, and call this verse a "slam dunk." My point is that if the interpretation of this verse is contrary to what Paul clearly teaches elsewhere, then that interpretation doesn't hold water.


So I take it that you don't believe this statement applies to you? And you're not Christ's disciple in the same way they were?


All warnings about falling away in scripture are heeded by those who have spiritual understanding. All believers fear God, and so heeding the warnings are a given. God's divine influence in them is so powerful that Peter can say with confidence that we are "kept by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." And since faith is the gift of God, believers are kept by the power of God. Part of that is the wisdom to heed the warning to abide in Him. Part of it is the faith they have that God's power keeps them in Christ. There are many other parts.
TD

So you agree that God is patient towards all but only wishing that some come to repentance and not perish? How is that being patient towards those who will burn in the lake of fire, by allowing them to continue in their unregenative natural state?

This is one single verse that Arminians like to quote because it appears to be a stand-alone statement. But let me point to other scriptures which indicate that Arminians might not be fully understanding what the apostle is trying to teach in this statement.
1. Jesus gave his life as a ransom "for many" - not all in this context.
2. Jesus blood "purchased men from every tribe, tongue, and nation" - not all.

Well I’ve been been posting many more than just one verse friend. I’ve asked 3 times how someone can fail to abide in Christ as Jesus stated in John 15:6.

Yes in Romans 5:19 says but notice that Paul is not referring to the actual amount of people because he also said through one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. Notice he didn’t say all were made sinners. He just using this as an example to compare how Adam’s transgression and Christ’s sacrifice are similar in regard to one man condemned many and one Man saved many.

“For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:19‬ ‭NASB‬‬

He said this because he already said in his previous statement that justification was for all men. Not that all men will be justified but all men are capable of being justified.

“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:18‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Jesus died for the sins of the whole world that’s why He has the authority to judge everyone and He can forgive whoever He sees fit to forgive. He will either acknowledge or deny whoever He sees fit before The Father. Just because He died for everyone’s sin does not mean that everyone will receive His atonement. Only those whom He acknowledges before The Father will receive His atonement.

So then, what if "all men" does not refer to every person on earth? What if it refers to all nations, all kinds of people? It would fit the context, if we understand that Timothy was a Jew and very possibly had a prejudice against gentiles. You could claim that my idea is just speculation, but so is yours. Therefore, you can't base a whole soteriology on this one verse of scripture, and call this verse a "slam dunk." My point is that if the interpretation of this verse is contrary to what Paul clearly teaches elsewhere, then that interpretation doesn't hold water.

Oh this is not based on one verse.

John 1:29, John 3:16, John 3:17, John 11:25, Titus 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Romans 10:12-13, Romans 6:10, Acts 10:34-35, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 9:26, 2 Cor 5:15.

I think that’s enough for now. So if one verse isn’t enough to make a point how about 14 verses that say Jesus died so that all may be saved?

I don’t even know what this has to do with the discussion. I said this

“Yes Jesus said you did not choose Me but I chose you. In what context did He say that? He said this in John 15 when He was telling His 11 faithful apostles to abide (remain, stay, continue) in Him and to bear fruit. He said

“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.”
‭‭John‬ ‭15:16‬ ‭NASB‬‬”

And you replied

So I take it that you don't believe this statement applies to you? And you're not Christ's disciple in the same way they were?

I don’t know how you come to that conclusion or how this is relevant to the discussion at all. But in answer to your question yes I do believe this applies to me.

So how can someone fail to abide in Christ?

 

[tdidymas]

20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

That's the order given in scripture. First we come to understand truth, then we are given more light. As Jesus says in another place, the one who seeks finds, the one who knocks has the door opened for him.

The one who comes to the light
The one who practices righteousness
Whoever lives by the truth
These are descriptions of WHO these people are who believe in Christ. Your idea that it is a chronological process is a false conclusion. It is not a chronological order of things, it is simply a description identifying who it is who believes in the gospel and obeys.

In order to believe, in order to understand truth, in order to be given more light, one has to first have light, first have faith, first be spiritual enough to understand truth. According to Paul, a person can't understand the gospel unless he is made spiritual by God (1 Cor. 2).
TD

 

[renniks]

Note he says "and will hate and betray one another" - this is obviously unbelievers who like to fellowship with believers because they are pushovers and friendly. Since Jesus said "by their fruit you shall know them" (that is, true believers), and John concurs by saying "he that hateth his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him," Jesus is obviously talking about people who claim to believe, but have "no root in them." Your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
TD

Again, jumping all over the place, and not addressing what is actually said. What is said is that many will fall away from the faith. In Matt 24, Jesus is talking to the disciples, and he says "watch out that no one deceives you." Why would those who had been with Jesus need to watch out if it was impossible for them to be deceived and fall away? He's not talking to non-believers here.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Your assessment is not a "slam dunk." I disagree with it. You're trying to say that reformed theology makes wicked men inculpable for their sin. I disagree with that assessment, and contend that it's a straw man. The scripture says men love darkness rather than light. This means they love the pleasures of sin, and hate the will of God. The reason they are incapable of complying with God's commandments is because they are in rebellion against God. They are blinded by Satan and can't see the light of the gospel. So they don't have any hope of having a spiritually greater advantage to their lives than the pleasures of sin. This makes them incapable of reasoning out the blessings of the gospel. But since they are in rebellion against God, they cannot believe in Christ (and have no reason in their minds to do so). And since they don't believe (and can't because of their sinful attitude), "the wrath of God abides on them." And so, since God is just, His wrath is just, and this proves that they are culpable.

But Pelagius, Cassian, and Finney did not believe that the sinful nature was inherited, although they had no scriptural basis for saying so. Pelagius was the father of Arminianism, since he stated that "if God gave men a command, then man must be able to obey it." This same reasoning you give above in your statement. It's the reasoning that man is not completely unrighteous, which reasoning is contrary to the idea that unregenerate people can't even make a righteous choice according to God's definition, as Paul teaches in Rom. 3:10-18 and other places. It reasons that if we can appear to make righteous choices according to our personal assessment of what is righteous, then surely that's the same as being righteous in the sight of God. But this is a false conclusion. We should believe what scripture clearly says, not what we reason out in our own assessment of the matter.


All true believers heed all the warnings, because they have the spiritual wisdom to do so. Those who don't believe God don't heed the warnings because they don't believe. They would rather have the pleasures of sin than eternal life, because their vision is blinded by the devil.
TD

Where exactly does the Bible say that a person cannot believe the gospel?

 

[Charlie24]

I believe in predestination. The predestination of Gods plan for mankind, not the person.

It says "sealed," not "born again." You seem to think that your opinion about this one verse is "all of scripture." But I say it is you that refuse to accept some scriptural teaching because you refuse to ask the question "could I be wrong about this?"
TD

I asked myself that question 30 years ago when I had my first debate on the subject.

Calvin had good intentions but he never could figure out that it's Gods plan for mankind that is predestined not the person.

In other words, predestination does not refer to the person being chosen but rather the purpose for which the person was chosen.

 

[renniks]

It says "sealed" not "born again." To make it the same is a false conclusion.

So you get saved twice? You have to be regenerated in order to be regenerated?
"For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." Romans 1:17

John 5:24
Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

This order of salvation is repeated over and over again in Scripture.

 

[renniks]

But since we become willing after God's saving grace, it's understandable that a person who doesn't understand or believe in predestination can come to the conclusion that he had control of himself.

I believe in predestination as it is taught... that those who are in Christ are predestined to do Good works. That those who believe in Christ are destined for eternal life.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The one who comes to the light
The one who practices righteousness
Whoever lives by the truth
These are descriptions of WHO these people are who believe in Christ. Your idea that it is a chronological process is a false conclusion. It is not a chronological order of things, it is simply a description identifying who it is who believes in the gospel and obeys.

In order to believe, in order to understand truth, in order to be given more light, one has to first have light, first have faith, first be spiritual enough to understand truth. According to Paul, a person can't understand the gospel unless he is made spiritual by God (1 Cor. 2).
TD

Sorry I didn’t see 1 Cor 2 which I’ve already explained the context of that verse. The Corinthians believed the gospel but they boasted about who they followed.

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭2:14-16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

This does not say that the natural man cannot believe the gospel. Let’s look at what Paul says in the very next verses.

“And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men? For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men?”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭3:1-4‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Now we’re the Corinthians unbelievers?

“But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Apparently Paul was not saying that these Corinthians who were carnal in nature were incapable of believing the gospel.

 

[tdidymas]

Funny, because what you just said about God's will is not supported by reformed theology. If God's will is not always done in salvation, then unconditional election goes out the window. If a person doesn't have his name in The book of Life, then according to reformed theology, that was exactly what God chose for him. Y'all need to keep your story straight. You can't have God pre choosing some and ignoring others and then turn around and say he did not get his will.
"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment. In regard to the elect, we regard calling as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment of glory. "

John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2002), 571

I'm pretty sure that you don't understand reformed theology then nor the scriptures. Your argument "If God's will is not always done in salvation, then unconditional election goes out the window." is a straw man, because you are confusing what men do in the natural realm with what God does in the spiritual realm. This is why you have determinism mixed up with reformed theology, and this is a common confusion.

The fact that God chooses not to save a certain person doesn't mean that such person being condemned is "God's will" (in the sense of God's perfect will). So, I think you also are confusing God's perfect will with God's permissive will.

Here is an example: God and Satan are in a discussion in Job 1-2. God entices Satan to do his thing against Job. It wasn't God's perfect will nor was it God performing the evil that Satan did to Job. It was God's permission, or permissive will for Satan to do what he did. It was, on the other hand, God's perfect will for Job to have his faith tried, thus bringing God glory through Job's faithfulness. So from this, we can conclude that God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours. Therefore to try and reason it out with our limited knowledge and understanding puts us in the position to falsely judge God.

And so, your argument "You can't have God pre choosing some and ignoring others and then turn around and say he did not get his will" is also a straw man, because you are confusing what men do in the natural realm against God's will, with what God does in the spiritual realm that is according to His will. Confusing this distinction makes for a convoluted mess and confused theology. I think this is why you don't understand reformed theology, and why you make false conclusions about the statement you quoted. In the same way IMO you make false conclusions when you read scripture.
TD

 

[BNR32FAN]

God not having partiality in all of scripture has to do with what man is naturally partial about: race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. This is what God is not partial about. To claim that God is "partial" in that sense when He decides to predestine some to salvation is a false conclusion.
TD

Not according to Romans 2

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:4-16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

How many times does Paul have to say ALL for it to actually mean ALL?

 

[BNR32FAN]

God not having partiality in all of scripture has to do with what man is naturally partial about: race, ethnicity, wealth, etc. This is what God is not partial about. To claim that God is "partial" in that sense when He decides to predestine some to salvation is a false conclusion.
TD

You still haven’t answered the question how does a person fail to abide in Christ. I think this is the fourth of fifth time I’ve asked this.

 

[renniks]

The fact that God chooses not to save a certain person doesn't mean that such person being condemned is "God's will" (in the sense of God's perfect will).

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction.

God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass
I guess you disagree with John Calvin and the westminster confession and just make it up as you go along?

 

[tdidymas]

What scripture are you using to support that idea?

Ok, some of the scriptures that support the idea that sin is inherited:
Ps. 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
Rom. 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned"
Rom. 7:13 "Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful."

The preponderance of evidence shows that the sinful nature is in us when we are born, and that inclination drives us to commit sinful acts. When John says "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves..." he is talking about the inclination to commit sinful acts.

We have to start with conception, so how do a few cells sin?

It appears to me you are confusing the physical nature with the spiritual. Sin is a systemic problem, having to do with man's autonomy and rebellion against God, which is embedded in his nature. Thus, he naturally loves pleasure more than God.

I do not see them doing any sinning in the way babies act.

Do babies have to be taught to love their mother?

Again, a confusion between the natural and the spiritual.

Why is it “nonsense” to believe a baby is born innocent, crying is healthy, since they are going through pain?

The same confusion, along with confusing innocence with sinlessness.

I see a seeming contradiction in your theology, since you feel God’s mercy should save the innocent baby incapable of sinning, but must condemn to hell those incapable of not sinning?

straw man argument, since God is condemning those in rebellion against Him. If Satan was capable of telling the truth, Jesus would not have said "there is no truth in him." And if Satan can't tell the truth, then is God unjust to condemn him? Your argument doesn't hold water.

There comes a time in the sinners life, which only God can know when it happened, that the sinner will never accept God’s charity as charity, since everything has already been tried which would cause him/her to repent he/she will not ever repent so takes on a lessor objective.

Unless God supernaturally enlivens a person as Eph. 2:5 says, that person will never accept God's charity. This is the plight of man that only Christ can save him from.

Satan was in the spirit already, seen God, and knew he was Loved by God unconditionally unselfishly and sacrificially. Satan, of his own free will, refused God’s Love which he fully understood and desired to be loved for who he was. There is nothing more God could do to change satan that had not already been done, so satan cannot change.

I don't really want to argue speculation. This is your opinion and speculation based on your agenda to reject the idea of predestination. But scripturally, those who are spiritually dead cannot spiritually resurrect themselves. It takes a person spiritually resurrected in order to obey what God commands according to God's terms, and this idea is inherent to Eph. 2:5.

We, by our own free will, chose to be satan’s children, and our seeking the pleasures of sin for at least a season hold us to satan, but fighting God and His Love is hard.

Ok, if you insist on using the term "free will," I'll go with you here. This freedom to choose to be Satan's children lacked knowledge, wisdom, and any insight into truth. So then, how could it be a "free will" choice? It was made in ignorance and stupidity. In fact, it was made in bondage to sin, since Jesus said "he who sins is a slave to sin." If by sinning, a person chooses to be Satan's child, he is already a slave to sin. This how people start sinning, it's because they are born with it.

I am not saying they have the power to become children of God while they are sinners.

So then, you are saying that a person must become righteous first, before becoming a child of God?

I do not “assume” sinful man can make some noble, honorable, worthy and righteous choice to follow God, but man can for unrighteous selfish reasons be willing to accept undeserved charity. You always seem to assume, I am say man can do something worthy.

I think you are inconsistent in your conversation. You claim that a person by himself can make the worthy choice of accepting Christ (that's doing something, BTW, and according to scripture it is a worthy choice, since righteousness comes by that faith with which we make that choice), and yet you deny that man can do something worthy. I see inconsistency here.

We agree all mature adults have sinned, so sinning or not sinning is not the issue, but I am pointing out just being willing to accept or not accepting God’s forgiveness of our sins is a huge issue and determines man’s eternal fate. Being willing is not some great work and is not a work at all by the Biblical definition of work.

Only believers are willing to do what you describe, and that faith is the gift of God. We have to have that gift first, then we can exercise the hope of God's forgiveness in Christ. Therefore, God's grace comes first, then our faith logically follows, then obedience.

Are you saying satan did not make a free will choice?

Satan's will was wrapped up in his conceit. So, from Satan's POV it was "free will" but from God's POV it was slavery. And it's the same with men. People see their personal autonomy as their most precious possession, yet God calls it bondage because it is contrary to how man was designed. We were created to glorify God in our lives by the faith that God is working His will through us. Lacking that faith is what autonomy is, and is therefore the essence of sin.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

You still haven’t answered the question how does a person fail to abide in Christ. I think this is the fourth of fifth time I’ve asked this.

I thought I answered that twice before. But here it goes:
The people who don't abide in Christ are those like Judas the son of perdition. Those who do abide in Him are true believers. All true believers have the spiritual wisdom to take heed to all the warnings of scripture. So then, very simply, the command "abide in Me" is the desire and commitment of every true believer in Christ. The unbeliever is the one who doesn't heed the warning because he has no spiritual wisdom to maintain a vision of the importance of doing so. They are caught up in the deceitfulness of sin and practice a love for sinful pleasures instead of a love for God. Such people have "no root in them."

So, when Jesus said "all whom the Father gives to me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will not cast out," he is talking about the true believer who has been gifted spiritual wisdom from God. Such people have the wherewithall to abide in Christ as He commanded, because they have the Spirit moving them to do so. Therefore, don't confuse spiritual wisdom with natural common sense, they are not the same.
TD

 

[tdidymas]

Again, jumping all over the place, and not addressing what is actually said. What is said is that many will fall away from the faith. In Matt 24, Jesus is talking to the disciples, and he says "watch out that no one deceives you." Why would those who had been with Jesus need to watch out if it was impossible for them to be deceived and fall away? He's not talking to non-believers here.

Yet Judas was a non-believer. If he had been a believer in Christ, he would not have betrayed him. Your argument is just a straw man. Churches contain believers and unbelievers, those born again and those not, wheat and tares.
TD

 

[BNR32FAN]

It says "sealed" not "born again." To make it the same is a false conclusion. Since in that context Paul states (Eph. 2:5) "even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" he is making the action of spiritual rebirth an act of God. In this statement he even leaves out our faith and obedience, which defines being saved by grace a total act of God. And since faith is the gift of God, it cannot be our act or choice, therefore to be saved by grace through faith is a total package that comes from God, and "does not depend on the man who wills..."

But since we become willing after God's saving grace, it's understandable that a person who doesn't understand or believe in predestination can come to the conclusion that he had control of himself.
TD

Ephesians 2:5 could also be saying that God made us alive with Christ thru His offer of salvation, without which we could not attain salvation. Assuming the implication that God made us persevere fails to address John 15:6 which I’ve been asking about all day and you keep declining to comment on.

 

[tdidymas]

Where exactly does the Bible say that a person cannot believe the gospel?

1 Cor. 2:6-16 where Paul is talking about the gospel he preaches.
Rom. 8:7 where Paul is talking about the faith that pleases God.
2 Cor. 4:4 where Paul is talking about people who are blind to it.
1 Jn. 5:19 where John says that the world is under Satan's control
These among many others show us that a person can't believe in the gospel (and doesn't even want to), unless God does a supernatural spiritual work in that person enabling them to believe.
TD