Calvinism is Gospel !

[HeIsHere]

It actually does, just not in those words. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 1:21 it says that the world by wisdom knows not God. In other words, no one comes to a saving knowledge of God by human reasoning. So even when an individual hears the gospel, they cannot come to faith by reasoning through what they have heard. Further, not being saved, they are opposed to God, not subject to the law of God, and cannot understand spiritual things. This is due to their fallen nature. How do we know this is part and parcel of the fallen nature? Because none of these things were true of Adam before he sinned.

So many assumptions/inference, proof texts and eisegesis to support a doctrine no where found in scripture.

Not what Paul has in mind in his letter to the Corinthians.
Seriously, do better, but then that is impossible when one is defending something that has no basis in scripture.

 

[WayneNSO]

It was a test. The salient question is, what did Adam and Eve learn from the test?

As in he wanted us to build good moral character by choosing to do good and obeying, but we choose to disobey instead ?

 

[Roger316]

But Im not talking about what men do. So maybe you should find another poster, Im strictly interested in what God through Christ has done, and the achievement of that.

According to you, whatever Christ did is invisible. So what does it matter?

 

[Cameron143]

thus we have to choose....thank you for finally admitting the truth we have to choose. Yes its all about choice. Amen!

This doesn't mitigate that faith isn't a choice. It simply acknowledges that people can make choices.

Many here really should take a class on basic logic.

Oh, mitigate means to make less.

 

[Cameron143]

I was not referring to you.

While we appear to reach the final conclusion in agreement, I find the idea that the Holy Spirit enters a person before they acknowledge Christ to be backwards. Actually, while tulips are beautiful in a garden, the tulip doctrine is not.

The title of this thread speaks volumes of where some people's heads are at.

If He didn't, no one would be saved. They would be forced to come to a knowledge of God using human reasoning. 1 Corinthians 1:21 says that isn't possible.

 

[Magenta]

You mean you have free will only after you have been saved ?

You seem to have difficulty answering questions. Are you a Christian?

"Free will" in the Bible? ~ Freedom is something believers are called to (Galatians 5 verse 13). We need Jesus to “set us free” (Galatians 5 verse 1). If Jesus has not freed us from the bondage of sin, then we are still slaves to sin (Romans 6 verses 6-7). Freedom is found in the presence of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3 verse 17). Only Jesus can give us true freedom (John 8 verse 36). Only through His lovingkindness can we truly make choices unfettered by a nature that is inherently hostile toward God.

 

[WayneNSO]

You seem to have difficulty answering questions. Are you a Christian?

"Free will" in the Bible? ~ Freedom is something believers are called to (Galatians 5 verse 13). We need Jesus to “set us free” (Galatians 5 verse 1). If Jesus has not freed us from the bondage of sin, then we are still slaves to sin (Romans 6 verses 6-7). Freedom is found in the presence of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3 verse 17). Only Jesus can give us true freedom (John 8 verse 36). Only through His lovingkindness can we truly make choices unfettered by a nature that is inherently hostile toward God.

Just wanted to clarify what you was asking, didnt mean tot offend your "Christian" nature

 

[Cameron143]

I would say God is the author of sin but not the doer of sin. He is the author in the sense His eternal purpose wrote it sin into His world for a redemptive purpose. He scripted the sin of Lucifer, and Adam and Eve, to overrule for His Glory in Christ Jesus.

To me it's semantics, but I agree with your conclusion. He certainly works all things after the counsel of His own will.

 

[rogerg]

Sorry, I'm not following you.

Did you read my 2926 post? In it I mention about God's " I will" verses - the requirements that God alone has satisfied not man. It is located towards the bottom of the post, but I forgot to include examples, along with examples of non "I will" statements - requirements that man, not God must satisfy. So, I finally remembered and posted both types of examples. Hope that makes sense.

 

[brightfame52]

According to you, whatever Christ did is invisible. So what does it matter?

Where did I say that ?

 

[Magenta]

Just wanted to clarify what you was asking, didnt mean tot offend your "Christian" nature

Why assume I am offended? I am waiting for you to answer questions I have asked you.

I have repeatedly stated my position on the will of the natural man through
explicitly articulated Scripture verses, which you called a cheat sheet.

 

[WayneNSO]

Why assume I am offended? I am waiting for you to answer questions I have asked you.

I have repeatedly stated my position on the will of the natural
man through Scriptures verses, which you called a cheat sheet.

I guess it was your "are you a Christian" part - sounded like you was offended

 

[Roger316]

So many assumptions/inference, proof texts and eisegesis to support a doctrine no where found in scripture.

Not what Paul has in mind in his letter to the Corinthians.
Seriously, do better, but then that is impossible when one is defending something that has no basis in scripture.

@Cameron143 The background to Paul's statement is the cultural philosophical mindset during Paul's time, which was the idea that man could learn about the world through reason. This isn't a bad philosophy. Look at how far we have come through reason. Paul isn't against reason, per se, his critique is that reason alone isn't adequate for learning the will of God. We need reason AND divine revelation.

Paul's basic idea is this. Suppose I had an office in an ivory tower and I wanted to think about how to save the world. I would never, based on reason alone, figure out that God's wrath would be appeased by the death of His Son on a cross. That idea never crossed anyone's mind.

Paul isn't saying that it was impossible for the rational man to believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The problem is that the rational man often DOES believe it but he stubbornly suppresses that truth. In order for me to believe that God provided us a savior, logically and rationally it follows that I AM a sinner in need of God's grace. If it is hard to accept that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, then it is one hundred times harder to admit that we are sinners.

 

[Cameron143]

@Cameron143 The background to Paul's statement is the cultural philosophical mindset during Paul's time, which was the idea that man could learn about the world through reason. This isn't a bad philosophy. Look at how far we have come through reason. Paul isn't against reason, per se, his critique is that reason alone isn't adequate for learning the will of God. We need reason AND divine revelation.

Paul's basic idea is this. Suppose I had an office in an ivory tower and I wanted to think about how to save the world. I would never, based on reason alone, figure out that God's wrath would be appeased by the death of His Son on a cross. That idea never crossed anyone's mind.

Paul isn't saying that it was impossible for the rational man to believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The problem is that the rational man often DOES believe it but he stubbornly suppresses that truth. In order for me to believe that God provided us a savior, logically and rationally it follows that I AM a sinner in need of God's grace. If it is hard to accept that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, then it is one hundred times harder to admit that we are sinners.

Paul is saying that the use of human reason is insufficient to knowing God. Revelation isn't optional, but altogether necessary. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 16. Peter was blessed because his knowledge that Jesus was the Christ was not the result of flesh and blood...human reason, but was the result of the revelation of the Father.

 

[HeIsHere]

@Cameron143 The background to Paul's statement is the cultural philosophical mindset during Paul's time, which was the idea that man could learn about the world through reason. This isn't a bad philosophy. Look at how far we have come through reason. Paul isn't against reason, per se, his critique is that reason alone isn't adequate for learning the will of God. We need reason AND divine revelation.

Paul's basic idea is this. Suppose I had an office in an ivory tower and I wanted to think about how to save the world. I would never, based on reason alone, figure out that God's wrath would be appeased by the death of His Son on a cross. That idea never crossed anyone's mind.

Paul isn't saying that it was impossible for the rational man to believe that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. The problem is that the rational man often DOES believe it but he stubbornly suppresses that truth. In order for me to believe that God provided us a savior, logically and rationally it follows that I AM a sinner in need of God's grace. If it is hard to accept that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, then it is one hundred times harder to admit that we are sinners.

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe
ESV.

For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached.
NLT

Complete contradicts unconditional election.. and neither does it state those who are gifted belief.

 

[Roger316]

Where did I say that ?

You avoid talking about human responsibility, so a person’s actual standing becomes irrelevant to you. In your view, Reformed theology functions like particle physics—the “particles” are invisible, and all you can do is trust the experts who claim to see them. Beyond that, it doesn’t shape your life in any practical way; it stays theoretical.

I understand and appreciate your desire to give God all the credit for salvation. You’re right that salvation is never meritorious—there is nothing we can do to earn it, and no human effort can add to the finished work of Christ. But that doesn’t mean salvation is invisible. Scripture calls us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and that ongoing transformation is anything but hidden. It is the lived, daily reality of following Christ. Our obedience, repentance, perseverance, and growth in holiness are not attempts to earn salvation; they are the visible fruit of the salvation God has already given. In other words, God’s grace is the cause, but our lived faith is the evidence—and both matter.

 

[HeIsHere]

Paul is saying that the use of human reason is insufficient to knowing God. Revelation isn't optional, but altogether necessary. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 16. Peter was blessed because his knowledge that Jesus was the Christ was not the result of flesh and blood...human reason, but was the result of the revelation of the Father.

No he is not.

NASB
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

CSB
For since, in God’s wisdom, the world did not know God through wisdom, God was pleased to save those who believe through the foolishness of what is preached.

NLT
Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save those who believe.

 

[Roger316]

Paul is saying that the use of human reason is insufficient to knowing God. Revelation isn't optional, but altogether necessary. Jesus said the same thing in Matthew 16. Peter was blessed because his knowledge that Jesus was the Christ was not the result of flesh and blood...human reason, but was the result of the revelation of the Father.

Right, but Paul isn't suggesting that every member of the elect will experience divine revelation. Instead, he argues that he is the foundation of the building because he received divine revelation.

 

[HeIsHere]

Right, but Paul isn't suggesting that every member of the elect will experience divine revelation. Instead, he argues that he is the foundation of the building because he received divine revelation.

Wut?

 

[Magenta]

I guess it was your "are you a Christian" part - sounded like you was offended

Well, you repeatedly neglected to answer if you had been set free in Christ.

I suppose as a FWer it is not something you can admit.

It would suggest you were not free before that.

Nope. Can't admit to that.