Works?

[Reformationist]

well if God requires us to forgive in order for us to be forgiven by Him, then obviously we have to do something for salvation, which by itself precludes the idea that our faith alone saves us. The same could be said of love.

Nothing we do is done "in order for us to be forgiven." There is much that the faithful will do because they are forgiven, however.

Doesn't the parable of the unforgiving servant demonstrate this?

God bless

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Nothing we do is done "in order for us to be forgiven." There is much that the faithful will do because they are forgiven, however.

Doesn't the parable of the unforgiving servant demonstrate this?

God bless

So you are saying we do not have to forgive or love?

 

[Ryft]

[name]Reformationist[/name] — With regard to your original question, I should think that we may regard a work as any actualization of human activity (assuming that mankind is the object of your question, which the context suggests). Any term describing the actualization of human activity, whether that be a thought, an attitude, a behavior, an action, etc., is thereby describing a work. The term is simply not restricted to physical labour or exertion; as an intransitive verb it also includes "mental effort or activity." To observe is a work, to contemplate is a work, a change in attitude is a work, because these are things that we 'do'. (This is notably different from a term which describes something that we 'are', for that is not a work but a property; e.g. female.)

Having said that, I wish to contribute a couple of thoughts to this thread.

With regard to salvation and all that it comprises: turning from rebellion against God to faith in him through Christ Jesus (i.e. faith and conversion) is a work; we are agreed that it is not physically demanding but it is nevertheless a work because it is something that one does. "When a man works," Paul notes, "his wages are not credited to him as a gift but as an obligation." Here is a question that is rarely asked: If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited. How, exactly, does one merit that which is unmerited? No one has ever told me.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" Paul asks. "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" Faith, although a human expression, is not of human origin. It is something God gives us, a saving grace wrought by Christ's redemptive activity. Jesus declared, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." Why is it that when two people hear the gospel, one can give way to faith and the other can harden in his rebellion? Why is it the former believed while the latter did not? One answer already provided in this thread is that, even though they both heard, only one really listened. The question you responded with is, Then why did one listen and the other did not? The answer given—"willingness"—is revealing and perhaps interesting but it is not biblical. What is the biblical answer?

They hear but they do not listen because, as Jesus said, they "are unable to hear what I say." Why are they unable to hear? Because they "belong to the devil," not to God, and God has not enabled them for God enables those who are his. "Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me," Jesus said, who reminded Peter that his confession of faith was not of human origin "but by my Father in heaven." Why is it some do not authentically hear Christ's message? "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Elsewhere he declared, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life: "many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." Why do some not believe? Again Jesus is clear: "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Why did Lydia respond to the gospel? Because "the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." Any number of people can all hear the same gospel message yet only some will respond in faith. Why? Because, Paul said, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow." Elsewhere he tells the believers in Corinth, "It is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus." And to the believers in Thessalonica he writes, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction . . . you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Why do some believe and others do not? Luke tells us that "all who were appointed for eternal life believed" because, as Paul affirms to the believers in Thessalonica, God appointed his chosen ones to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. John tells us that a child of God is not a product of human descent, desire, or will but is, rather, a product of being "born of God." Luke tells us that repentance is something that the exalted Christ gives, which Paul likewise attests. And Paul also writes to the believers in Phillipi that belief in Christ is something that is granted to us; he also tells them that "it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

Why does one believe and not another? They do not believe because they do not belong to God, they are unable to hear God, they are not enabled to come to Christ, they are not his sheep, they are not appointed to believe, they are not granted repentance, they do not seek God as God, they do not fear God, they are hostile to God, they do submit to God's law, nor can they do so, they cannot please God—you know as well as I do that I could go on and on because, despite the prevaricating claims of detractors, this view is solidly scriptural... because it is derived from Scripture.

[name]Van[/name] — You had said that "placing our faith in God can be termed a work, but it is not a work of merit," adding that "our faith does not earn salvation." If our faith is not a work of merit, if our faith does not earn salvation, then it would seem that you feel God can justly damn someone who has placed faith in Christ. I do not see how this follows. If I "believe in the Lord Jesus," how can I fail "to be saved" (Acts 16:29-31)? If the apostles can be trusted then it would seem God cannot damn someone who believes in and calls upon the name of Christ.

If I believe and have faith in Christ Jesus, then God must save me; the question is, "To what is God obligated: man or his own holy nature?" We can see that if faith is of human origin then God is obligated to man, but if belief and faith are themselves gifts then God is obligated to his own holy nature—and salvation is then by God's merciful grace, and not by an obligation to man.

[name]ILUVLIGHT[/name] — You had said, "The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith," and you said this because you think that "being regenerated is being saved." I do not know where this belief of yours comes from, but I can tell you that it fails to correspond with either Reformed theology or Scripture. To be regenerated is to be born of God, to be made a new creation, to be enabled by the Father to come to the Son. If the entire process stopped right there, you in fact would not be saved. Why? Because having your heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath. That is what Christ accomplished upon the cross, which we are partakers of by grace through faith in Christ.

Regeneration is not the same thing as propitiation, expiation is not the same thing as conversion, sanctification is not the same thing as justification, etc. Salvation is an encompassing and multifaceted rubric in which all these things are contemplated. Salvation is a sum, of which all these things are parts, distinguished but ultimately inseparable.

 

[nobdysfool]

[name]Reformationist[/name] — With regard to your original question, I should think that we may regard a work as any actualization of human activity (assuming that mankind is the object of your question, which the context suggests). Any term describing the actualization of human activity, whether that be a thought, an attitude, a behavior, an action, etc., is thereby describing a work. The term is simply not restricted to physical labour or exertion; as an intransitive verb it also includes "mental effort or activity." To observe is a work, to contemplate is a work, a change in attitude is a work, because these are things that we 'do'. (This is notably different from a term which describes something that we 'are', for that is not a work but a property; e.g. female.)

Having said that, I wish to contribute a couple of thoughts to this thread.

With regard to salvation and all that it comprises: turning from rebellion against God to faith in him through Christ Jesus (i.e. faith and conversion) is a work; we are agreed that it is not physically demanding but it is nevertheless a work because it is something that one does. "When a man works," Paul notes, "his wages are not credited to him as a gift but as an obligation." Here is a question that is rarely asked: If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited. How, exactly, does one merit that which is unmerited? No one has ever told me.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" Paul asks. "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" Faith, although a human expression, is not of human origin. It is something God gives us, a saving grace wrought by Christ's redemptive activity. Jesus declared, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." Why is it that when two people hear the gospel, one can give way to faith and the other can harden in his rebellion? Why is it the former believed while the latter did not? One answer already provided in this thread is that, even though they both heard, only one really listened. The question you responded with is, Then why did one listen and the other did not? The answer given—"willingness"—is revealing and perhaps interesting but it is not biblical. What is the biblical answer?

They hear but they do not listen because, as Jesus said, they "are unable to hear what I say." Why are they unable to hear? Because they "belong to the devil," not to God, and God has not enabled them for God enables those who are his. "Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me," Jesus said, who reminded Peter that his confession of faith was not of human origin "but by my Father in heaven." Why is it some do not authentically hear Christ's message? "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Elsewhere he declared, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life: "many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." Why do some not believe? Again Jesus is clear: "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Why did Lydia respond to the gospel? Because "the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." Any number of people can all hear the same gospel message yet only some will respond in faith. Why? Because, Paul said, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow." Elsewhere he tells the believers in Corinth, "It is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus." And to the believers in Thessalonica he writes, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction . . . you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Why do some believe and others do not? Luke tells us that "all who were appointed for eternal life believed" because, as Paul affirms to the believers in Thessalonica, God appointed his chosen ones to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. John tells us that a child of God is not a product of human descent, desire, or will but is, rather, a product of being "born of God." Luke tells us that repentance is something that the exalted Christ gives, which Paul likewise attests. And Paul also writes to the believers in Phillipi that belief in Christ is something that is granted to us; he also tells them that "it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

Why does one believe and not another? They do not believe because they do not belong to God, they are unable to hear God, they are not enabled to come to Christ, they are not his sheep, they are not appointed to believe, they are not granted repentance, they do not seek God as God, they do not fear God, they are hostile to God, they do submit to God's law, nor can they do so, they cannot please God—you know as well as I do that I could go on and on because, despite the prevaricating claims of detractors, this view is solidly scriptural... because it is derived from Scripture.

[name]Van[/name] — You had said that "placing our faith in God can be termed a work, but it is not a work of merit," adding that "our faith does not earn salvation." If our faith is not a work of merit, if our faith does not earn salvation, then it would seem that you feel God can justly damn someone who has placed faith in Christ. I do not see how this follows. If I "believe in the Lord Jesus," how can I fail "to be saved" (Acts 16:29-31)? If the apostles can be trusted then it would seem God cannot damn someone who believes in and calls upon the name of Christ.

If I believe and have faith in Christ Jesus, then God must save me; the question is, "To what is God obligated: man or his own holy nature?" We can see that if faith is of human origin then God is obligated to man, but if belief and faith are themselves gifts then God is obligated to his own holy nature—and salvation is then by God's merciful grace, and not by an obligation to man.

[name]ILUVLIGHT[/name] — You had said, "The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith," and you said this because you think that "being regenerated is being saved." I do not know where this belief of yours comes from, but I can tell you that it fails to correspond with either Reformed theology or Scripture. To be regenerated is to be born of God, to be made a new creation, to be enabled by the Father to come to the Son. If the entire process stopped right there, you in fact would not be saved. Why? Because having your heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath. That is what Christ accomplished upon the cross, which we are partakers of by grace through faith in Christ.

Regeneration is not the same thing as propitiation, expiation is not the same thing as conversion, sanctification is not the same thing as justification, etc. Salvation is an encompassing and multifaceted rubric in which all these things are contemplated. Salvation is a sum, of which all these things are parts, distinguished but ultimately inseparable.

Good post, Bro!

 

[Reformationist]

So you are saying we do not have to forgive or love?

I am certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that we are to forgive and love because we have been forgiven a much greater debt and loved with a much greater love than we can even comprehend. When we recognize that sin is a transgression against the law of God we will see the sins of others as treason against God and it is for that that we should grieve. The effect that we experience is strictly peripheral to the sin against God, for that is where the transgression truly lies.

Joseph, from the OT, is a great example of this. When his own brothers sinned so greatly and sold him into slavery, they feared the reprisal when facing him again. Did Joseph say, "Well, because I'm gracious I'm going to forgive you?" No, he said, "Do not fear, for am I in the place of God?" Joseph recognized that passing judgment on his brothers would be a clear repudiation of his faith in recognizing that it is God who governs the affairs of men. Yes, man makes his choices but his choices do not thwart the will of the Almighty. In a way that we, in our finitude cannot fully comprehend, those choices, even the sinful ones, are concurrently being governed to bring the will of God to fruition.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

[name]Reformationist[/name] — With regard to your original question, I should think that we may regard a work as any actualization of human activity (assuming that mankind is the object of your question, which the context suggests). Any term describing the actualization of human activity, whether that be a thought, an attitude, a behavior, an action, etc., is thereby describing a work. The term is simply not restricted to physical labour or exertion; as an intransitive verb it also includes "mental effort or activity." To observe is a work, to contemplate is a work, a change in attitude is a work, because these are things that we 'do'. (This is notably different from a term which describes something that we 'are', for that is not a work but a property; e.g. female.)

Having said that, I wish to contribute a couple of thoughts to this thread.

With regard to salvation and all that it comprises: turning from rebellion against God to faith in him through Christ Jesus (i.e. faith and conversion) is a work; we are agreed that it is not physically demanding but it is nevertheless a work because it is something that one does. "When a man works," Paul notes, "his wages are not credited to him as a gift but as an obligation." Here is a question that is rarely asked: If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited. How, exactly, does one merit that which is unmerited? No one has ever told me.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" Paul asks. "What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?" Faith, although a human expression, is not of human origin. It is something God gives us, a saving grace wrought by Christ's redemptive activity. Jesus declared, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." Why is it that when two people hear the gospel, one can give way to faith and the other can harden in his rebellion? Why is it the former believed while the latter did not? One answer already provided in this thread is that, even though they both heard, only one really listened. The question you responded with is, Then why did one listen and the other did not? The answer given—"willingness"—is revealing and perhaps interesting but it is not biblical. What is the biblical answer?

They hear but they do not listen because, as Jesus said, they "are unable to hear what I say." Why are they unable to hear? Because they "belong to the devil," not to God, and God has not enabled them for God enables those who are his. "Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me," Jesus said, who reminded Peter that his confession of faith was not of human origin "but by my Father in heaven." Why is it some do not authentically hear Christ's message? "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." Elsewhere he declared, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me." Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life: "many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to." Why do some not believe? Again Jesus is clear: "you do not believe because you are not my sheep." Why did Lydia respond to the gospel? Because "the Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message." Any number of people can all hear the same gospel message yet only some will respond in faith. Why? Because, Paul said, "I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow." Elsewhere he tells the believers in Corinth, "It is because of [God] that you are in Christ Jesus." And to the believers in Thessalonica he writes, "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction . . . you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit." Why do some believe and others do not? Luke tells us that "all who were appointed for eternal life believed" because, as Paul affirms to the believers in Thessalonica, God appointed his chosen ones to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. John tells us that a child of God is not a product of human descent, desire, or will but is, rather, a product of being "born of God." Luke tells us that repentance is something that the exalted Christ gives, which Paul likewise attests. And Paul also writes to the believers in Phillipi that belief in Christ is something that is granted to us; he also tells them that "it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

Why does one believe and not another? They do not believe because they do not belong to God, they are unable to hear God, they are not enabled to come to Christ, they are not his sheep, they are not appointed to believe, they are not granted repentance, they do not seek God as God, they do not fear God, they are hostile to God, they do submit to God's law, nor can they do so, they cannot please God—you know as well as I do that I could go on and on because, despite the prevaricating claims of detractors, this view is solidly scriptural... because it is derived from Scripture.

[name]Van[/name] — You had said that "placing our faith in God can be termed a work, but it is not a work of merit," adding that "our faith does not earn salvation." If our faith is not a work of merit, if our faith does not earn salvation, then it would seem that you feel God can justly damn someone who has placed faith in Christ. I do not see how this follows. If I "believe in the Lord Jesus," how can I fail "to be saved" (Acts 16:29-31)? If the apostles can be trusted then it would seem God cannot damn someone who believes in and calls upon the name of Christ.

If I believe and have faith in Christ Jesus, then God must save me; the question is, "To what is God obligated: man or his own holy nature?" We can see that if faith is of human origin then God is obligated to man, but if belief and faith are themselves gifts then God is obligated to his own holy nature—and salvation is then by God's merciful grace, and not by an obligation to man.

[name]ILUVLIGHT[/name] — You had said, "The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith," and you said this because you think that "being regenerated is being saved." I do not know where this belief of yours comes from, but I can tell you that it fails to correspond with either Reformed theology or Scripture. To be regenerated is to be born of God, to be made a new creation, to be enabled by the Father to come to the Son. If the entire process stopped right there, you in fact would not be saved. Why? Because having your heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath. That is what Christ accomplished upon the cross, which we are partakers of by grace through faith in Christ.

Regeneration is not the same thing as propitiation, expiation is not the same thing as conversion, sanctification is not the same thing as justification, etc. Salvation is an encompassing and multifaceted rubric in which all these things are contemplated. Salvation is a sum, of which all these things are parts, distinguished but ultimately inseparable.

Thank you Ryft. I have not been so greatly edified in a long time. God has greatly blessed us, both in our salvation and in giving to us servants, like yourself, that so articulately express the glorious good news of His Word.

God bless

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi RYFT;

One answer already provided in this thread is that, even though they both heard, only one really listened. The question you responded with is, Then why did one listen and the other did not? The answer given—"willingness"—is revealing and perhaps interesting but it is not biblical. What is the biblical answer?

You seem so sure Yet you like Reformationist have ignored what scripture actually says.
Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Jerusalem resisted they did not accept the will of God for them to be gathered as a hen gathers her chickens under her wing. Their resistance was by there will, and God allowed it.

Joh 5:33 Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
Joh 5:34 But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
Joh 5:35 He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.

Those who followed John the Baptist were willing.

2Co 8:12 For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not

Paul also agreed that a man with a willing mind is accepted.
It seems when you said that being willing isn't biblical is just plain wrong.

If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace,

Actually this is only half right. Because it isn't by grace alone it is by grace through faith.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
No matter how you look at it Salvation is conditional. It is a gratuity for our faith.
Gratuity
GRATU'ITY, n.
1. A free gift; a present; a donation; that which is given without a compensation or equivalent.
2. Something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment.

Rom 5:15 But235 not3756 as5613 the3588 offense,3900 so3779 also2532 is the3588 free gift.5486 For1063 if1487 through the3588 offense3900 of one1520 many4183 be dead,599 much4183 more3123 the3588 grace5485 of God,2316 and2532 the3588 gift1431 by1722 grace,5485 which(3588) is by one1520 man,444 Jesus2424 Christ,5547 hath abounded4052 unto1519 many.4183

Look up "free gift" 5486 to see for your self.

ILUVLIGHT — You had said, "The reformed theory is that God must save men first in order for them to have faith," and you said this because you think that "being regenerated is being saved." I do not know where this belief of yours comes from, but I can tell you that it fails to correspond with either Reformed theology or Scripture. To be regenerated is to be born of God, to be made a new creation, to be enabled by the Father to come to the Son. If the entire process stopped right there, you in fact would not be saved. Why? Because having your heart of stone replaced with a heart of flesh is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath. That is what Christ accomplished upon the cross, which we are partakers of by grace through faith in Christ.

I disagree Regeneration is being born again this is deliverence this is being saved. Simply Salvation is not a forced relationship with God.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[nobdysfool]

No matter how you look at it Salvation is conditional. It is a gratuity for our faith.
Gratuity...
Something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment.

So you're saying that we do God a favor by believing in Him, and in return, He saves us?

That is salvation by works, not by faith.

And calling Salvation a "gratuity" is unbelievable! Salvation a "gratuity" for us "doing God a favor" by believing in Him?

Absolutely unbelievable!

In no way is this biblical.

 

[Ryft]

You seem so sure Yet you like Reformationist have ignored what scripture actually says.

What the reader needs to notice here is the complete failure of ILUVLIGHT to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post, and then on top of this we find his egregious accusation that I ignored Scripture. This, I submit, is an example of intense irony. Sir, before you accuse someone of ignoring Scripture, ensure that you have yourself addressed his scriptural references. I feel compelled to remind you that, as Christians, you and I are bound by a stricter ethic.

I am uncertain about the point of your scriptural references, although I might guess. If you are trying to demonstrate from Scripture that man has the noetic faculties for choice and does routinely engage these faculties in making choices, then such a demonstration is unnecessary for we all believe that, sir. When Scripture speaks of the sinner's inability, it is not referring to some lack of faculties; rather, the sinner's inability has as its ground the corrupt state of the faculties (e.g. Tit. 1:15)—a corruption due to sin, which therefore means it is a moral problem, not an intellectual one. Mitch Cervinka put it best when he said:

It is generally true that, in order to be responsible, a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it! The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness. And this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem—he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.
​

The sinner's corrupt state of faculties: Gen. 6:5; 8:21; 1 Kin. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Psa. 14:2-3; 51:5; 130:3; 143:2; Pro. 20:9; 20:12; Ecc. 7:20; 7:29; 9:3; Eze. 16:6; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 6:9-10; 53:6; Isa. 64:6; 65:1; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Mat. 7:16-18; 12:33; Mar. 4:12; 7:21-23; Luk. 8:10; Joh. 1:4-5; 3:3; 3:19-20; 6:44; 6:65; 8:34; 8:43-44, 47; Acts 7:51; 11:18; 26:17-18; Rom. 1:21-28; 3:11, 23; 3:9-12; 5:6; 6:20; 7:18; 8:7-8; 10:20; 11:35-36; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Cor. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19; 5:8; Col. 1:21; 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 1:15; 3:3; Jas. 3:8; 2 Pet. 2:13-14, 22; 1 Joh. 1:8, 10; 1 Jo. 5:19.

London Baptist Confession (1689), CHAPTER VI, Section 2: "Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists (1834 and 1948), CHAPTER IV, Section 2: "In consequence of the first transgression, the state under which the posterity of Adam came into the world is so different from that of Adam that they have not that righteousness and purity which Adam had before the fall; they are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil."

General Baptist Articles of Faith (1870): "That we are fallen and depraved creatures, and cannot extricate ourselves from our fallen situation by any ability we possess by nature."

Baptist Faith and Message Statement (1925): "...whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, and are under condemnation..."

Regarding your treatment of Matthew 23:37, you make the same blunder that Dave Hunt and others make. Your view is that "they did not accept the will of God for them to be gathered as a hen gathers her chickens under her wing." I respectfully submit that you have not read the passage carefully enough. It is hoped that the readers shall note carefully and responsibly that those whom Christ would have gathered and those who were described as not willing are not the same group of people. They are two different groups: "Jerusalem" and "your children." It was the rulers who were not willing that the "children" should be gathered to Christ, made proselytes to him and come under Christ's wings (cf. v. 13).

The verse does not say, "I would have gathered you, and you would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not!"

What it does say is, "How often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" As one commentary writes, "The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which at different times and places followed him. But the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue" (cf. vv. 13-36).

Actually this is only half right. Because it isn't by grace alone it is by grace through faith.

To understand what the "it" here refers to, let us revisit the rhetorical question I had asked [name]Reformationist[/name]: "If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited."

To this you responded by saying, "Salvation isn't by grace alone; it is by grace through faith." Like with Matt. 23:37, I think you are not reading my statements carefully enough. Although we are saved through faith, it is not faith that saves us. As Benjamin Warfield noted, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." Our salvation is found in Christ alone; faith is merely the instrument through which we appropriate all the benefits Christ's atoning sacrifice merited. And Christ's redemptive work was of grace; we did not earn it, God did not owe it to us. As I said, "salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited," which your citation of Rom. 5:15 likewise affirms: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

No matter how you look at it Salvation is conditional. It is a gratuity for our faith . . .

You said here that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which implies the second definition: "something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment." Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis.

I disagree Regeneration is being born again this is deliverence this is being saved. Simply

Describe from Scripture what the nature of gennao anothen is (lit. "born from above"), demonstrating thereby how this is expiatory and propitiatory.

Salvation is not a forced relationship with God.

No one believes it is. This is a canard.

 

[nobdysfool]

What the reader needs to notice here is the complete failure of ILUVLIGHT to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post, and then on top of this we find his egregious accusation that I ignored Scripture. This, I submit, is an example of intense irony. Sir, before you accuse someone of ignoring Scripture, ensure that you have yourself addressed his scriptural references. I feel compelled to remind you that, as Christians, you and I are bound by a stricter ethic.

I am uncertain about the point of your scriptural references, although I might guess. If you are trying to demonstrate from Scripture that man has the noetic faculties for choice and does routinely engage these faculties in making choices, then such a demonstration is unnecessary for we all believe that, sir. When Scripture speaks of the sinner's inability, it is not referring to some lack of faculties; rather, the sinner's inability has as its ground the corrupt state of the faculties (e.g. Tit. 1:15)—a corruption due to sin, which therefore means it is a moral problem, not an intellectual one. Mitch Cervinka put it best when he said:

It is generally true that, in order to be responsible, a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it! The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness. And this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem—he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.
​

The sinner's corrupt state of faculties: Gen. 6:5; 8:21; 1 Kin. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Psa. 14:2-3; 51:5; 130:3; 143:2; Pro. 20:9; 20:12; Ecc. 7:20; 7:29; 9:3; Eze. 16:6; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 6:9-10; 53:6; Isa. 64:6; 65:1; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Mat. 7:16-18; 12:33; Mar. 4:12; 7:21-23; Luk. 8:10; Joh. 1:4-5; 3:3; 3:19-20; 6:44; 6:65; 8:34; 8:43-44, 47; Acts 7:51; 11:18; 26:17-18; Rom. 1:21-28; 3:11, 23; 3:9-12; 5:6; 6:20; 7:18; 8:7-8; 10:20; 11:35-36; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Cor. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19; 5:8; Col. 1:21; 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 1:15; 3:3; Jas. 3:8; 2 Pet. 2:13-14, 22; 1 Joh. 1:8, 10; 1 Jo. 5:19.

London Baptist Confession (1689), CHAPTER VI, Section 2: "Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists (1834 and 1948), CHAPTER IV, Section 2: "In consequence of the first transgression, the state under which the posterity of Adam came into the world is so different from that of Adam that they have not that righteousness and purity which Adam had before the fall; they are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil."

General Baptist Articles of Faith (1870): "That we are fallen and depraved creatures, and cannot extricate ourselves from our fallen situation by any ability we possess by nature."

Baptist Faith and Message Statement (1925): "...whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, and are under condemnation..."

Regarding your treatment of Matthew 23:37, you make the same blunder that Dave Hunt and others make. Your view is that "they did not accept the will of God for them to be gathered as a hen gathers her chickens under her wing." I respectfully submit that you have not read the passage carefully enough. It is hoped that the readers shall note carefully and responsibly that those whom Christ would have gathered and those who were described as not willing are not the same group of people. They are two different groups: "Jerusalem" and "your children." It was the rulers who were not willing that the "children" should be gathered to Christ, made proselytes to him and come under Christ's wings (cf. v. 13).

The verse does not say, "I would have gathered you, and you would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not!"

What it does say is, "How often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" As one commentary writes, "The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which at different times and places followed him. But the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue" (cf. vv. 13-36).


To understand what the "it" here refers to, let us revisit the rhetorical question I had asked [name]Reformationist[/name]: "If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited."

To this you responded by saying, "Salvation isn't by grace alone; it is by grace through faith." Like with Matt. 23:37, I think you are not reading my statements carefully enough. Although we are saved through faith, it is not faith that saves us. As Benjamin Warfield noted, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." Our salvation is found in Christ alone; faith is merely the instrument through which we appropriate all the benefits Christ's atoning sacrifice merited. And Christ's redemptive work was of grace; we did not earn it, God did not owe it to us. As I said, "salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited," which your citation of Rom. 5:15 likewise affirms: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."


You said here that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which implies the second definition: "something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment." Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis.


Describe from Scripture what the nature of gennao anothen is (lit. "born from above"), demonstrating thereby how this is expiatory and propitiatory.


No one believes it is. This is a canard.

Another excellent post, bro! Well said!

 

[Reformationist]

What the reader needs to notice here is the complete failure of ILUVLIGHT to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post, and then on top of this we find his egregious accusation that I ignored Scripture. This, I submit, is an example of intense irony. Sir, before you accuse someone of ignoring Scripture, ensure that you have yourself addressed his scriptural references. I feel compelled to remind you that, as Christians, you and I are bound by a stricter ethic.


I am uncertain about the point of your scriptural references, although I might guess. If you are trying to demonstrate from Scripture that man has the noetic faculties for choice and does routinely engage these faculties in making choices, then such a demonstration is unnecessary for we all believe that, sir. When Scripture speaks of the sinner's inability, it is not referring to some lack of faculties; rather, the sinner's inability has as its ground the corrupt state of the faculties (e.g. Tit. 1:15)—a corruption due to sin, which therefore means it is a moral problem, not an intellectual one. Mitch Cervinka put it best when he said:

It is generally true that, in order to be responsible, a man must have the physical ability and mental capacity to do what is right. Calvinism fully confesses that fallen men have the physical strength to keep God's commandments and the mental capacity to understand what God's commands require of them. In fact, this is the very reason why unregenerate men often react so violently against God's word—they do understand what it says, and they don't like it! The problem with fallen man is not in his physical abilities nor in his mental capacity to understand. Rather, man's problem lies in the desires of his heart—he loves sin and hates righteousness. And this is what makes him guilty for his sins. He could obey God's law if he desired to do so. He could trust in Christ if he had any love for God. Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem—he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness.​

The sinner's corrupt state of faculties: Gen. 6:5; 8:21; 1 Kin. 8:46; 2 Chr. 6:36; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; Psa. 14:2-3; 51:5; 130:3; 143:2; Pro. 20:9; 20:12; Ecc. 7:20; 7:29; 9:3; Eze. 16:6; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26; 6:9-10; 53:6; Isa. 64:6; 65:1; Jer. 13:23; 17:9; Mat. 7:16-18; 12:33; Mar. 4:12; 7:21-23; Luk. 8:10; Joh. 1:4-5; 3:3; 3:19-20; 6:44; 6:65; 8:34; 8:43-44, 47; Acts 7:51; 11:18; 26:17-18; Rom. 1:21-28; 3:11, 23; 3:9-12; 5:6; 6:20; 7:18; 8:7-8; 10:20; 11:35-36; 1 Cor. 2:14; 1 Cor. 3:20-21; 1 Cor. 4:7; 2 Cor. 4:3-4; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19; 5:8; Col. 1:21; 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25-26; Tit. 1:15; 3:3; Jas. 3:8; 2 Pet. 2:13-14, 22; 1 Joh. 1:8, 10; 1 Jo. 5:19.

London Baptist Confession (1689), CHAPTER VI, Section 2: "Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists (1834 and 1948), CHAPTER IV, Section 2: "In consequence of the first transgression, the state under which the posterity of Adam came into the world is so different from that of Adam that they have not that righteousness and purity which Adam had before the fall; they are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil."

General Baptist Articles of Faith (1870): "That we are fallen and depraved creatures, and cannot extricate ourselves from our fallen situation by any ability we possess by nature."

Baptist Faith and Message Statement (1925): "...whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, and are under condemnation..."

Regarding your treatment of Matthew 23:37, you make the same blunder that Dave Hunt and others make. Your view is that "they did not accept the will of God for them to be gathered as a hen gathers her chickens under her wing." I respectfully submit that you have not read the passage carefully enough. It is hoped that the readers shall note carefully and responsibly that those whom Christ would have gathered and those who were described as not willing are not the same group of people. They are two different groups: "Jerusalem" and "your children." It was the rulers who were not willing that the "children" should be gathered to Christ, made proselytes to him and come under Christ's wings (cf. v. 13).

The verse does not say, "I would have gathered you, and you would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not!" Nor does it say, "I would have gathered thy children, and they would not!"

What it does say is, "How often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!" As one commentary writes, "The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ were not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people seemed inclined to attend his ministry, as appears from the vast crowds, which at different times and places followed him. But the chief priests and rulers did all they could to hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as the Messiah; by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines, and by menacing the people with curses, and excommunications, making a law, that whoever confessed him should be turned out of the synagogue" (cf. vv. 13-36).


To understand what the "it" here refers to, let us revisit the rhetorical question I had asked [name]Reformationist[/name]: "If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited."

To this you responded by saying, "Salvation isn't by grace alone; it is by grace through faith." Like with Matt. 23:37, I think you are not reading my statements carefully enough. Although we are saved through faith, it is not faith that saves us. As Benjamin Warfield noted, "It is not faith in Christ that saves but Christ that saves through faith." Our salvation is found in Christ alone; faith is merely the instrument through which we appropriate all the benefits Christ's atoning sacrifice merited. And Christ's redemptive work was of grace; we did not earn it, God did not owe it to us. As I said, "salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited," which your citation of Rom. 5:15 likewise affirms: "For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."


You said here that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which implies the second definition: "something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment." Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis.


Describe from Scripture what the nature of gennao anothen is (lit. "born from above"), demonstrating thereby how this is expiatory and propitiatory.


No one believes it is. This is a canard.

Once again the truth shines forth. Thank you for being here.

God bless

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

RYFT;

What the reader needs to notice here is the complete failure of ILUVLIGHT to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post, and then on top of this we find his egregious accusation that I ignored Scripture. This, I submit, is an example of intense irony. Sir, before you accuse someone of ignoring Scripture, ensure that you have yourself addressed his scriptural references. I feel compelled to remind you that, as Christians, you and I are bound by a stricter ethic.

What the reader needs to notice here is that Rytf didn't like the refutation I gave him for the nonsense of his claim that regeneration is not being saved and that this is the process that enables men to believe in God. Instead as if he has already shown that total depravitity is provable from scripture. Which it isn't. He makes the outrageous claim that regeneration isn't being saved.

Scripture speaks of the sinner's inability,

Really where would that be? scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so.

What the reader needs to notice here is the complete failure of ILUVLIGHT to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post, and then on top of this we find his egregious accusation that I ignored Scripture.

Here we go with false accusations. I say false because I answered with scripture. Which he discounts because he will not investigate them at all.
Ryft says;

I am uncertain about the point of your scriptural references, although I might guess.

Guess!!!!!! Ryft expects a complete explanation yet he him self is unwilling to consider what scripture actually says. Ryft the explanation is the scriptures I presented, studythem, then try again.

Regarding your treatment of Matthew 23:37, you make the same blunder that Dave Hunt and others make. Your view is that "they did not accept the will of God for them to be gathered as a hen gathers her chickens under her wing." I respectfully submit that you have not read the passage carefully enough. It is hoped that the readers shall note carefully and responsibly that those whom Christ would have gathered and those who were described as not willing are not the same group of people. They are two different groups: "Jerusalem" and "your children." It was the rulers who were not willing that the "children" should be gathered to Christ, made proselytes to him and come under Christ's wings (cf. v. 13).

If your critque were true then why do you feel your explanation is better than the scriptures explanation.
The word Jerusalem implies all of Jerusalem. You have forgotten the ruling power was Rome not Israel. V 13
Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
Scribes and Phariphsee's do not describe the powers that were.

London Baptist Confession (1689), CHAPTER VI, Section 2: "Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them, whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

Treatise of the Faith and Practices of the Free Will Baptists (1834 and 1948), CHAPTER IV, Section 2: "In consequence of the first transgression, the state under which the posterity of Adam came into the world is so different from that of Adam that they have not that righteousness and purity which Adam had before the fall; they are not willing to obey God, but are inclined to evil."

General Baptist Articles of Faith (1870): "That we are fallen and depraved creatures, and cannot extricate ourselves from our fallen situation by any ability we possess by nature."

Baptist Faith and Message Statement (1925): "...whereby his posterity inherit a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin, and are under condemnation..."

None of the above is biblical. Not one word provable from scripture. Which is why you posted this stuff. I have no respect for men just as my God has no respect for men. These sayings of men contradict scripture.

If I put my faith in Christ, is not God obligated to save me? Surely a just and holy God cannot damn someone who has placed faith in Christ; ergo, he is obligated to save that person. Yet a constant point that Scripture makes is that salvation is of grace, which by definition is unmerited."

There is no such thing as unconditional Salvation.
Paul said;
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

The belief in Christ is necessary. No one is saved with out it. No one is regenerated before faith because Grace is through faith.
We receive Grace from the throne of Grace by faith.
Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

To this you responded by saying, "Salvation isn't by grace alone; it is by grace through faith." Like with Matt. 23:37, I think you are not reading my statements carefully enough. Although we are saved through faith, it is not faith that saves us.

Although faith isn't what saves us but Grace and the hope of it are. We cannot have any hope of Grace with out faith because faith is what gives us the hope of Salvation.
Rom 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
This hope is ours and it saves us when combined with the Grace of God. Simply there is no relationship with out the cooperation of both parties. God and men.

You said here that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which implies the second definition: "something given in return for a favor; an acknowledgment." Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis.

I did support it. Your problem with is a direct denial of what scripture actually says. The Greek does not say free gift but says instead "charisma" which is translated as "gratuity" A gratuity is a freely given gift. It is not mandatory. How ever is most often given as the result of a service or favor. If favor as Ryft is so interested in that favor is nothing less than the grace of our belief in Him. Which Ryft must not agree is necessary.

The grace of God is favor regardless of how much you might want to disclaim that. Man is also capeable of favor or grace towards God. It's what the relationship is it is the favor of one another
It's obvious that you as do most Calvinist rely on men. You must place your trust in them because what your doctrine suggest isn't in scriptire. Not once have you shown scripture that shows us that regeneration comes first before faith. Yet you claim it does. Where you get this from is the doctrine of men and not the Bible...
ILUVLIGHT

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Iluvlight

Really where would that be? scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so.

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Inabilty and cannot are the same.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Ryft]

The readers may review my response to ILUVLIGHT and notice that I had offered over 60 references from Scripture in support of my statements—including four Baptist confessions, from the 17th to the 20th century—and then they may review his reply to me and observe how many of those Scripture references he directly addressed (i.e. none). Furthermore, it is deeply ironic to witness a self-professed Baptist refer to these statements from historic and contemporary Baptist confessions as "unbiblical"; ILUVLIGHT neglects the Scripture references presented and throws out the history of the Baptist church in one fell swoop—and all of this by the strength of his mere assertion! This is terribly impressive. He accuses me of eisegesis (e.g. "Where you get this from is the doctrine of men and not the Bible"), claiming that my exegesis is erroneous, but irresponsibly neglects to interact with the texts in question in order to make his case! Are we supposed to just take his word for it? He does not say, but it's not as if he left us with anything else. It is almost as if he is working from the Dave Hunt manual for apologetics (even going so far as to repeat the same errors Hunt made). ILUVLIGHT makes a great deal of noise about what the Scripture I presented cannot mean but he does not offer a single positive exegetical argument to tell us what it does mean. Anyone can make contrary assertions—is anything easier?—but I implore the reader to never mistake that as sound exegesis. It simply is not. Until the alleged errors are proven, by interacting directly with the text presented through a responsible hermeneutic of sound exegesis, the scriptural argument stands as established.

Rytf didn't like the refutation I gave him for the nonsense of his claim that regeneration is not being saved

Anyone that has been reading along can discern the difference easily and immediately: ILUVLIGHT simply asserts that regeneration is equal to being saved and leaves it at that, while I assert that it cannot be and then argue why it cannot (that regeneration "is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath"). He responds to this by repeating his blanket assertion that being regenerated "is being saved"—still without adding anything to advance our understanding of how this can be so. Recognizing this, I even gave him a head start by prompting him to describe from Scripture (1) the nature of gennao anothen and (2) how this event is expiatory and propitiatory. What did ILUVLIGHT do with this prompting? The readers already know that ILUVLIGHT ignored it, referred to my position as "nonsense," and merely asserted for a third time that regeneration is equal to being saved—and moved on, once again without offering any exegetical support. All careful readers can decide for themselves which side of this discussion is establishing his argument.

Really where would that be? scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so.

I offered a number of passages from Scripture that state this quite explicitly—and some used precisely those words ("unable to hear" and "cannot understand")—in my response to [name]Reformationist[/name], which he, [name]nobdysfool[/name], and [name]BBAS 64[/name] certainly seemed able to discern. And in one of those passages, it was Jesus himself speaking; and not only did he tell them "you are unable to hear what I say" but he even told them why—"You belong to your father, the devil . . . The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." ILUVLIGHT is free to pretend that I did not offer any Scripture to this effect, but the readers know otherwise. I would also state the painfully obvious, that to simply pretend Scripture was not presented is a complete abdication of sound exegesis. Ignoring an argument does not refute it, and so it therefore remains unrefuted.

Here we go with false accusations. I say false because I answered with scripture. Which he discounts because he will not investigate them at all.

1. To remind the readers, what I said is that ILUVLIGHT completely failed "to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post." Is this a false accusation? Anyone can easily review his post (here) and verify whether or not he had engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted. It does not take long to discover that he had not, and therefore it was not a false accusation but a verifiable statement of fact.

2. Although ILUVLIGHT insists that he "answered with scripture," what he does not seem to realize is that this has no bearing on what I had said. I know he answered with Scripture. We all know that. However, it still remains that he had not "engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted"—not once did he exegetically critique, for example, John 10:26.

3. I used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist. I was forced to confront the errors of that belief system and eventually gave way to a more Evangelical theology (Mennonite Brethren). As any learned person knows, both views are extensively Arminian. I was, for many years, thoroughly convinced that Reformed theology was not just sadly mistaken but utterly heretical. It was a grotesque infection on the history of the Christian church and needed to be lanced. For years I contended that it was pure heresy. What I mean to say is, please do not presume that I refuse to investigate your proof-texts. My friend, I had used those very same ones while I fighting tooth-and-nail against that heresy known as Reformed theology, clinging to them and defending them tenaciously for years. Out of spiritual and intellectual honesty, I finally had to admit that my views on these passages were in error and I had to start from square one with everything I believed. As a result of all this, I suspect that there are few people out there that have examined such texts closer or more thoroughly than I have. It was a long, hard battle and I did not accept anything until it was proven. Trust me, I have spent years investigating these texts of yours—and not just those ones.

If your critque [of Matt. 23:37] were true then why do you feel your explanation is better than the scriptures explanation.

1. My explanation is not "better" than Scripture's explanation. I encourage the readers to note that my critique was exegetical in nature. By definition, that means the only thing I presented was Scripture's explanation. My critique examined two things: (1) what the passage does not say, which anyone can verify be reading the text, and (2) what the passage does say and—more importantly—what that means; as the readers can see, I did this by examining not only the internal grammar but also the immediate and surrounding context. This is how sound exegesis is conducted.

2. ILUVLIGHT does not agree with my exegesis, but it cannot escape the reader's notice that his attempted refutation committed a major exegetical error. He said that "the word 'Jerusalem' implies all of Jerusalem." First, notice that this is nothing more than a bare assertion on his part. He makes this statement without drawing any support from the text itself. As I had said before, we must not mistake bare assertions as sound exegesis. Second, his interpretation does violence to the text itself, by eisegetically imposing a conclusion that is contrary to the text. I want the reader to notice three very important things: (1) v. 37 itself refutes his interpretation, by showing that the term 'Jerusalem' here is constrained to "you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"; (2) the preceding verses (vv. 13-36), connected contextually to v. 37, show that these are the "teachers of the law and Pharisees." So ILUVLIGHT is simply in error: 'Jerusalem' in this passage refers to the "teachers of the law and Pharisees" who "kill the prophets and stone those sent to you" (cf. v 34); (3) relevant to v. 37 itself is v. 13, which establishes the context further: "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to" (v. 13), "how often I have longed to gather your children together . . . but you were not willing" (v. 37).

You have forgotten the ruling power was Rome not Israel

This is an irrelevant prevarication, for nowhere in Matt. 23:13-39 does Jesus refer to Rome.

There is no such thing as unconditional Salvation.

This is a canard. No one said there was.

The belief in Christ is necessary. No one is saved with out it.

This is a canard. No one said otherwise.

No one is regenerated before faith because Grace is through faith. We receive Grace from the throne of Grace by faith.

1. The idea that "grace is through faith" does not somehow establish that faith precedes regeneration. There are too many hidden premises here which ILUVLIGHT needs to bring out of hiding before we can scripturally examine his argument. But complicating this even more is the fact that grace is not always through faith: unbelievers exhibit no faith in God and yet they receive all kinds of grace, starting with the fact that they are not immediately condemned to the fires of hell despite their defiant enmity against God. Their continued existence is a testimony of God's grace.

2. Romans 5:2 says that "we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand." What grace is that? Verse 1 tells us: "being justified by faith." Justification is the particular grace in view in these verses—indeed, in this chapter. There are more saving graces beside justification, however: sanctification is a saving grace, so is adoption and regeneration, and so forth. As I had written earlier, "salvation" is a multifaceted complex that involves a number of elements in man's redemption and reconciliation with God.

Finally, ILUVLIGHT had said that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which he interpretted as something given in return for a favor. I had asked of him, "Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis." The readers will note his complete lack of any Scripture whatsoever.

 

[nobdysfool]

The readers may review my response to ILUVLIGHT and notice that I had offered over 60 references from Scripture in support of my statements—including four Baptist confessions, from the 17th to the 20th century—and then they may review his reply to me and observe how many of those Scripture references he directly addressed (i.e. none). Furthermore, it is deeply ironic to witness a self-professed Baptist refer to these statements from historic and contemporary Baptist confessions as "unbiblical"; ILUVLIGHT neglects the Scripture references presented and throws out the history of the Baptist church in one fell swoop—and all of this by the strength of his mere assertion! This is terribly impressive. He accuses me of eisegesis (e.g. "Where you get this from is the doctrine of men and not the Bible"), claiming that my exegesis is erroneous, but irresponsibly neglects to interact with the texts in question in order to make his case! Are we supposed to just take his word for it? He does not say, but it's not as if he left us with anything else. It is almost as if he is working from the Dave Hunt manual for apologetics (even going so far as to repeat the same errors Hunt made). ILUVLIGHT makes a great deal of noise about what the Scripture I presented cannot mean but he does not offer a single positive exegetical argument to tell us what it does mean. Anyone can make contrary assertions—is anything easier?—but I implore the reader to never mistake that as sound exegesis. It simply is not. Until the alleged errors are proven, by interacting directly with the text presented through a responsible hermeneutic of sound exegesis, the scriptural argument stands as established.


Anyone that has been reading along can discern the difference easily and immediately: ILUVLIGHT simply asserts that regeneration is equal to being saved and leaves it at that, while I assert that it cannot be and then argue why it cannot (that regeneration "is neither expiatory nor propitiatory—i.e. it neither removes the guilt of sin nor satisfies God's just wrath"). He responds to this by repeating his blanket assertion that being regenerated "is being saved"—still without adding anything to advance our understanding of how this can be so. Recognizing this, I even gave him a head start by prompting him to describe from Scripture (1) the nature of gennao anothen and (2) how this event is expiatory and propitiatory. What did ILUVLIGHT do with this prompting? The readers already know that ILUVLIGHT ignored it, referred to my position as "nonsense," and merely asserted for a third time that regeneration is equal to being saved—and moved on, once again without offering any exegetical support. All careful readers can decide for themselves which side of this discussion is establishing his argument.


I offered a number of passages from Scripture that state this quite explicitly—and some used precisely those words ("unable to hear" and "cannot understand")—in my response to [name]Reformationist[/name], which he, [name]nobdysfool[/name], and [name]BBAS 64[/name] certainly seemed able to discern. And in one of those passages, it was Jesus himself speaking; and not only did he tell them "you are unable to hear what I say" but he even told them why—"You belong to your father, the devil . . . The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." ILUVLIGHT is free to pretend that I did not offer any Scripture to this effect, but the readers know otherwise. I would also state the painfully obvious, that to simply pretend Scripture was not presented is a complete abdication of sound exegesis. Ignoring an argument does not refute it, and so it therefore remains unrefuted.


1. To remind the readers, what I said is that ILUVLIGHT completely failed "to engage any of the Scripture I had quoted throughout my post." Is this a false accusation? Anyone can easily review his post (here) and verify whether or not he had engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted. It does not take long to discover that he had not, and therefore it was not a false accusation but a verifiable statement of fact.

2. Although ILUVLIGHT insists that he "answered with scripture," what he does not seem to realize is that this has no bearing on what I had said. I know he answered with Scripture. We all know that. However, it still remains that he had not "engaged any of the Scripture I had quoted"—not once did he exegetically critique, for example, John 10:26.

3. I used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist. I was forced to confront the errors of that belief system and eventually gave way to a more Evangelical theology (Mennonite Brethren). As any learned person knows, both views are extensively Arminian. I was, for many years, thoroughly convinced that Reformed theology was not just sadly mistaken but utterly heretical. It was a grotesque infection on the history of the Christian church and needed to be lanced. For years I contended that it was pure heresy. What I mean to say is, please do not presume that I refuse to investigate your proof-texts. My friend, I had used those very same ones while I fighting tooth-and-nail against that heresy known as Reformed theology, clinging to them and defending them tenaciously for years. Out of spiritual and intellectual honesty, I finally had to admit that my views on these passages were in error and I had to start from square one with everything I believed. As a result of all this, I suspect that there are few people out there that have examined such texts closer or more thoroughly than I have. It was a long, hard battle and I did not accept anything until it was proven. Trust me, I have spent years investigating these texts of yours—and not just those ones.


1. My explanation is not "better" than Scripture's explanation. I encourage the readers to note that my critique was exegetical in nature. By definition, that means the only thing I presented was Scripture's explanation. My critique examined two things: (1) what the passage does not say, which anyone can verify be reading the text, and (2) what the passage does say and—more importantly—what that means; as the readers can see, I did this by examining not only the internal grammar but also the immediate and surrounding context. This is how sound exegesis is conducted.

2. ILUVLIGHT does not agree with my exegesis, but it cannot escape the reader's notice that his attempted refutation committed a major exegetical error. He said that "the word 'Jerusalem' implies all of Jerusalem." First, notice that this is nothing more than a bare assertion on his part. He makes this statement without drawing any support from the text itself. As I had said before, we must not mistake bare assertions as sound exegesis. Second, his interpretation does violence to the text itself, by eisegetically imposing a conclusion that is contrary to the text. I want the reader to notice three very important things: (1) v. 37 itself refutes his interpretation, by showing that the term 'Jerusalem' here is constrained to "you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you"; (2) the preceding verses (vv. 13-36), connected contextually to v. 37, show that these are the "teachers of the law and Pharisees." So ILUVLIGHT is simply in error: 'Jerusalem' in this passage refers to the "teachers of the law and Pharisees" who "kill the prophets and stone those sent to you" (cf. v 34); (3) relevant to v. 37 itself is v. 13, which establishes the context further: "You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to" (v. 13), "how often I have longed to gather your children together . . . but you were not willing" (v. 37).


This is an irrelevant prevarication, for nowhere in Matt. 23:13-39 does Jesus refer to Rome.


This is a canard. No one said there was.


This is a canard. No one said otherwise.


1. The idea that "grace is through faith" does not somehow establish that faith precedes regeneration. There are too many hidden premises here which ILUVLIGHT needs to bring out of hiding before we can scripturally examine his argument. But complicating this even more is the fact that grace is not always through faith: unbelievers exhibit no faith in God and yet they receive all kinds of grace, starting with the fact that they are not immediately condemned to the fires of hell despite their defiant enmity against God. Their continued existence is a testimony of God's grace.

2. Romans 5:2 says that "we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand." What grace is that? Verse 1 tells us: "being justified by faith." Justification is the particular grace in view in these verses—indeed, in this chapter. There are more saving graces beside justification, however: sanctification is a saving grace, so is adoption and regeneration, and so forth. As I had written earlier, "salvation" is a multifaceted complex that involves a number of elements in man's redemption and reconciliation with God.

Finally, ILUVLIGHT had said that salvation "is a gratuity for our faith," which he interpretted as something given in return for a favor. I had asked of him, "Please suport this assertion with Scripture which we can interact with by responsible exegesis." The readers will note his complete lack of any Scripture whatsoever.

Masterfully stated, Bro!

 

[stumpjumper]

MOD HAT ON

The last few pages of posts have been overly personal. Please address the topic and not the individual posters as it turns into a slippery slope in regards to directly insulting other users.

Thank you.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi BBAS64;

Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Obviously two questions. The first question suggest that Christ doesn't know or else why would He ask. We know that isn't true. Unless He did know and wanted to bring the persons attention to the fact, they were not listening. Scripture still doesn't say that man cannot hear or understand the gospel because of a curse placed on them by God because of the fall of Adam.
I admit that man is a sinner and doesn't deserve anything from God. However God has given man the choice because of Love. Love is an act of the will. Which is how man is able to love anyone he chooses.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of
the glory of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see faith comes before grace everytime. If man could not hear then he could not be saved.

If you say well God changes man's heart. This is true God does Change man's heart but the question is when?. If you say well before faith this cannot be true because, Man has to have faith before grace can be applied because grace is always through faith.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi BBAS64;

Obviously two questions. The first question suggest that Christ doesn't know or else why would He ask. We know that isn't true. Unless He did know and wanted to bring the persons attention to the fact, they were not listening.

Good Day,Iluvlight

The question is a rhetorical, Jesus uses these often as does other writters of Scripture do. They are very effective as a means of teaching.

Scripture still doesn't say that man cannot hear or understand the gospel because of a curse placed on them by God because of the fall of Adam.

You have changed the basis and the premise of the question you had asked.

I admit that man is a sinner and doesn't deserve anything from God. However God has given man the choice because of Love. Love is an act of the will. Which is how man is able to love anyone he chooses.

Rom 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Rom 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of
the glory of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

You see faith comes before grace everytime. If man could not hear then he could not be saved.

If you say well God changes man's heart. This is true God does Change man's heart but the question is when?. If you say well before faith this cannot be true because, Man has to have faith before grace can be applied because grace is always through faith.
ILUVLIGHT

Iluv, I was just answering what you assumed was absent from the pages of Scripture. Not sure how much of this is germaine to you assertion...

Really where would that be? scripture never says man has an inability to hear or understand that is not so.

In fact the scripture does say that, no matter how you equivicate the text, and dogde the reading of the text.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi BBAS64;

The question is a rhetorical, Jesus uses these often as does other writters of Scripture do. They are very effective as a means of teaching.

Rhetoric or not a question is not a statement but is the asking for a statement or answer. Christ wasn't saying man has a disability in his hearing. He was asking if the man could hear and from that it is derived that man cannot hear. If you take out the italic word even then you can see that He was merely asking and not teaching.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Christ latter asked ;
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not
This verse shows that they could hear and understand but were unwilling to believe because they would not accept the truth. If it were other wise then JN 8:45 was a senseless statement if they could not hear.
ILUVLIGHT

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi BBAS64;

Rhetoric or not a question is not a statement but is the asking for a statement or answer. Christ wasn't saying man has a disability in his hearing. He was asking if the man could hear and from that it is derived that man cannot hear. If you take out the italic word even then you can see that He was merely asking and not teaching.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word.

Good Day, Iluv

You miss the form of the question, the italic aside...

Would you like to do the greek word for word the nature and type of the question remains....

Christ latter asked ;
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not
This verse shows that they could hear and understand but were unwilling to believe because they would not accept the truth. If it were other wise then JN 8:45 was a senseless statement if they could not hear.
ILUVLIGHT

Jn 8:45 a question

Nope the form is a "infact" statement didactic in nature, does not address their willingness as it is a stament and does not adress the cause. Very misleading to put words in the text, can get you twisted.

You really have to take verse 44 to understand 43 and 45...
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.

"This verse shows that they could hear and understand"

That idea is no where in that verse, the words you need to make this true are absent from the text.

Verse 44 answeers why the could not (unable) to hear 8:43,

They are of thier father the devil, not that they choose not to listen as you assumed out side of the text in your last post.

I like contextual reading and exergesis of what the text really says, it works so well no real need to add words and or idea or whole phrases to that which the Lord spoke.

Peace to u,

Bill