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.
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?"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?
What scripture are you using to support that idea?It's a lot more than this. It says that sin is inherited.
We have to start with conception, so how do a few cells sin?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.
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.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?
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.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
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.“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
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
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?
The one who comes to the light20 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.
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.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
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
I asked myself that question 30 years ago when I had my first debate on the subject.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
So you get saved twice? You have to be regenerated in order to be regenerated?It says "sealed" not "born again." To make it the same is a false conclusion.
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.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.
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
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.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
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
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
"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.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).
Ok, some of the scriptures that support the idea that sin is inherited:What scripture are you using to support that idea?
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.We have to start with conception, so how do a few cells sin?
Again, a confusion between the natural and the spiritual.I do not see them doing any sinning in the way babies act.
Do babies have to be taught to love their mother?
The same confusion, along with confusing innocence with sinlessness.Why is it “nonsense” to believe a baby is born innocent, crying is healthy, since they are going through pain?
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
So then, you are saying that a person must become righteous first, before becoming a child of God?I am not saying they have the power to become children of God while they are sinners.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Are you saying satan did not make a free will choice?
I thought I answered that twice before. But here it goes: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.
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.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.
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
1 Cor. 2:6-16 where Paul is talking about the gospel he preaches.Where exactly does the Bible say that a person cannot believe the gospel?
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?