Faith is a fruit of the Spirit, heresy is a work of the flesh (Gal.5)

[tribesman]

A-Omega,

You have written a pretty long reply with points that has been discussed earlier in this thread. I see no reason to repeat myself, as anyone interested in my take on these issues easily may browse this thread through. I will summarize this but also make a few notes to your post.

I will begin with the notes. First off, I am not into fatalism. If you think reformed doctrine is about fatalism, then you need to read up better on it. No one is denying "human responsibility" in the slightest, just the notion of it being any kind of responsibility on the sinner to save himself, or to contribute to that end. As for the pharisees, it must be mentioned, they actually believed in free-willism, that they could swing their souls up to heaven, if they just wanted it. They had a shallow concept of sin and thought their striving to keep God's commandments was enough to be counted as righteous.

On Romans 3: Again, you do not give enough attention or respect to other scriptures that would help interpret Rom.3, which it relates to. One example being Rom.8 and 9. Clearly these scriptures talks about righteousness and salvation. You are seemingly out to rant about calvinism to the very extent that you miss the point with the scriptures at hand and what we have been discussing here. Yet it is true that all election mentioned in scripture are not referring to salvation. However, some are. This thread has shown that faith is a fruit of the Spirit, something that an unregenerate person can not have.

On Cornelius calling (Acts 10:14):

At this point, Cornelius has not heard the Gospel. He was not a believer in Jesus. Yet he was seeking God. He was not totally depraved. The Bible calls him "devout" and one who "feared God" and prayed to Him. Yet He had not heard the Gospel. This completely refutes the point Calvinists make using Romans 3. Not only was Cornelius aware of God and seeking Him, an angel even commended him for his efforts. Thus the "unregenerate", as you call them, can and do seek and desire God. The only way to interpret this clear chapter on salvation is to add things and twist scripture. No total depravity when the bible is used in context.

I couldn't disagree more. The Bible says Cornelius was a "just" man. There is only one way to be just. No one can be just before God without being regenerated. No one can have true fear of God if being unregenerate. Rom.3:18 says about the unregenerate that "There is no fear of God before their eyes". The prayers and alms of an unregenerate man would hardly have been in remembrance in the sight of God. So, I'd say there are positive indications that Cornelius may have been regenerate already at that point. Cornelius was a God-fearer (a monotheistic gentile in good and friendly standing with second temple judaism) and had heard much of the Word of God. Obviously, faith had come to him by that mean.

Now to the summarization. Here's what I see as poor and non-systematic scripture reading and why some of the conclusions such will result in have serious flaws and contradictions.

1. Most of scripture is not universally addressed, meaning not addressed to every people and person who have ever lived. It is primarily addressed to the covenant people of God, among whom were/are both just and unjust.

2. One can not give the unregenerate the same characteristics or qualities as the regenerate. One can not give pagans the same characteristics or qualities as the israelites. Nor can one say that God expects anything positive from the unregenerate, nor that He asks anything in that wise from them (that pertains to their justification). Example: When God asks His people to choose or to do, then that is not a statement about what mankind in general can choose or do.

3. Not everything that God commands imply the ability in the one who receives the commandment to do what is commanded. When God commands perfect obedience to His law, or that one be perfect as He is perfect, then it does not imply ability in the hearers of these commands to do what is commanded. When God commands everyone everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, then it does not imply ability in the hearers of these commands to do what is commanded.

4. When a person positively responds to God's calling, then it must be presupposed that he has, by divine means, received that which made this positive response a reality. It was not himself using his "abilities" better than other sinners, or him being "more spiritual" than them, or him being better or smarter than them, it was God intervening for him. When a person negatively reject God, then he himself alone is to be blamed and guilty for it.

 

[A-Omega]

A-Omega,

You have written a pretty long reply with points that has been discussed earlier in this thread. I see no reason to repeat myself, as anyone interested in my take on these issues easily may browse this thread through. I will summarize this but also make a few notes to your post.

I will begin with the notes. First off, I am not into fatalism. If you think reformed doctrine is about fatalism, then you need to read up better on it. No one is denying "human responsibility" in the slightest, just the notion of it being any kind of responsibility on the sinner to save himself, or to contribute to that end. As for the pharisees, it must be mentioned, they actually believed in free-willism, that they could swing their souls up to heaven, if they just wanted it. They had a shallow concept of sin and thought their striving to keep God's commandments was enough to be counted as righteous.

[FONT=&quot]OK. I said nothing about fatalism. I said the doctrine of election and total depravity which you are trying to exegise out of Romans 3, is an incorrect interpretation. [/FONT]

On Romans 3: Again, you do not give enough attention or respect to other scriptures that would help interpret Rom.3, which it relates to. One example being Rom.8 and 9. Clearly these scriptures talks about righteousness and salvation. You are seemingly out to rant about calvinism to the very extent that you miss the point with the scriptures at hand and what we have been discussing here. Yet it is true that all election mentioned in scripture are not referring to salvation. However, some are. This thread has shown that faith is a fruit of the Spirit, something that an unregenerate person can not have.

[FONT=&quot]Okay first off, let’s remember that the verse I brought up was about The Father drawing people to Christ. You responded and brought up Romans 3. Now in my humble opinion, I think the first passage to look to for meaning when looking at Romans 3 would be Psalms 14 and 10 since those are the passages that Paul is quoting verbatim. Which is why I mentioned them. And I stand by my contention that you are ripping the meaning of Paul’s words out of context. The chapter has absolutely nothing to do with total depravity and is explicitly stating that election for Israelites does not equal salvation. And I see no refutation or response to this specific point in this thread from you. Romans 8 and 9 (and Romans 9 ESPECIALLY) are also used out of context to support the 5 points of Calvinism but that’s another discussion for another day. [/FONT]

On Cornelius calling (Acts 10:14):



I couldn't disagree more. The Bible says Cornelius was a "just" man. There is only one way to be just. No one can be just before God without being regenerated.

[FONT=&quot]Where is the scripture for this principle you are stating? [/FONT]

No one can have true fear of God if being unregenerate. Rom.3:18 says about the unregenerate that "There is no fear of God before their eyes".

[FONT=&quot]No Paul quoted Psalm 14 to make a point to the Jews who thought they were saved through the law. That is the proper context of the passage. You are still using it completely out of context. [/FONT]

The prayers and alms of an unregenerate man would hardly have been in remembrance in the sight of God.

[FONT=&quot]And here is where we get into more adding to scripture. Once again: we know for an absolute fact that at this point not only was Cornelius not saved, he had never heard the Gospel! So are you trying to say that God had already imparted the Holy Spirit to Cornelius and “regenerated him” (to use your term) before he heard the Gospel?? Where is the scripture to support this??? [/FONT]

So, I'd say there are positive indications that Cornelius may have been regenerate already at that point.

[FONT=&quot]What is your definition of regenerate? As I said in my prior post, the only way you can try and support any doctrine of total depravity with Acts 10 is by blatantly adding things to the text that are not there. And please note, that the Holy Spirit does not come upon Cornelius until verse 44! So we know full well when he received the Holy Spirit. Acts 10 is a complete story of Gospel witnessing and salvation from beginning to end. And it completely refutes “total depravity”, election and other calvinist notions. [/FONT]

Cornelius was a God-fearer (a monotheistic gentile in good and friendly standing with second temple judaism) and had heard much of the Word of God. Obviously, faith had come to him by that mean.

[FONT=&quot]But he was not saved. That is what matters. Unless you’re saying there’s a special interim period where an unsaved person can believe God before even hearing the Gospel?? Is that what you are submitting?? [/FONT]

Now to the summarization. Here's what I see as poor and non-systematic scripture reading and why some of the conclusions such will result in have serious flaws and contradictions.

1. Most of scripture is not universally addressed, meaning not addressed to every people and person who have ever lived. It is primarily addressed to the covenant people of God, among whom were/are both just and unjust.

[FONT=&quot]Right. Like Romans 3, which was a specific indictment of the Jews who were resting on their ethnicity for salvation as opposed to looking to faith in Christ. And Paul scolds the Jews using Psalms 14 and 10 to show they are no different than anyone else. But you have taken this passage to make it into some universal passage about the “unregenerate” when it has nothing to do with this unbiblical idea. [/FONT]

2. One can not give the unregenerate the same characteristics or qualities as the regenerate. One can not give pagans the same characteristics or qualities as the israelites. Nor can one say that God expects anything positive from the unregenerate, nor that He asks anything in that wise from them (that pertains to their justification). Example: When God asks His people to choose or to do, then that is not a statement about what mankind in general can choose or do.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t see the relevance to what I’m saying here. And again, you are just making these principles up. They are not scripture so they are not compelling to me. [/FONT]

3. Not everything that God commands imply the ability in the one who receives the commandment to do what is commanded. When God commands perfect obedience to His law, or that one be perfect as He is perfect, then it does not imply ability in the hearers of these commands to do what is commanded. When God commands everyone everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, then it does not imply ability in the hearers of these commands to do what is commanded.

[FONT=&quot]Again, just unbiblical man-man made doctrine. Where is the scripture? And again, I don’t see the relevance. Cornelius was seeking God before he was saved. Cornelius pleased God before he even knew about Jesus. It’s clear Biblical fact. [/FONT]

4. When a person positively responds to God's calling, then it must be presupposed that he has, by divine means, received that which made this positive response a reality. It was not himself using his "abilities" better than other sinners, or him being "more spiritual" than them, or him being better or smarter than them, it was God intervening for him. When a person negatively reject God, then he himself alone is to be blamed and guilty for it.

[FONT=&quot]
Sure, God can reveal things to people. But it takes a mind to understand, a heart to believe and a mouth to profess. But again, this is not really relevant to my points.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] You started out with guns blazing saying the unsaved have no ability to seek, hear or even know God without the Gospel. Yet, here's Cornelius, unsaved and not knowing the name of Jesus yet and not receiving the Holy Spirit, and yet he is being commended for his desire, seeking and pleasing of The Lord. This chapter alone pretty much refutes your entire theory.
[/FONT]

 

[tribesman]

A-Omega,

I am doubtful about your intention to "discuss" here, as well as your level of seriousity, seeing the ranting of your dislike of calvinism. I will yet make an input here, in case other readers might be interested. But I will not repeat myself and will not play a tennis game with "you are wrong" posts going back and forth. The level must be acceptable, I reiterate that I will only reply to serious posts.

Total depravity (or whatever term one prefers) is hinted at in many scriptures. There are also plenty of scriptures to show the abominable characteristics of the unregenerate. Your take on Rom.3 and Ps.10 and 14 makes no sense when you understand that it basically applies to all unregenerate, who are at enmity both against God and His people (Gal.4:29). Paul was not just addressing some unregenerate jews, he said that he had "proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Rom.3:9), concluding that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom.3.23). All here means - all.

It is funny when you repeatedly use the word "context", yet at the same time you refuse to interpret scripture with scripture. Such non-systematic "interpretation" will never be contextual, it is always selective. Which you have given a "good" example of here.

As for Cornelius, you say "we know for an absolute fact that at this point not only was Cornelius not saved". I will ask you with your own question: "Where is the scripture to support this???". Where is that "absolute fact" found? You also said "Cornelius was seeking God before he was saved. Cornelius pleased God before he even knew about Jesus. It’s clear Biblical fact." This is but your own opinion. Yet you are talking about "adding to scripture", what are these statements of yours other than just that? Do you use one measurement for others and another one for yourself? Are you serious?

I will say that the charachteristics that Cornelius had does not match up with the unregenerate. It says that Cornelius and his house feared God. Scriptures says that those who fear the Lord possess God's salvation (Ps. 85:9), enjoy God's mercy (Ps. 103:17), and please God (Ps. 147:11). Cornelius must have had faith, since without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb.11:6). Unsaved men do not fear God (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1). Cornelius prayers were even "come up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4), before Peter shared the gospel with him. Prov.15:29 says that God only hears the prayers of the righteous. There is but one way to be righteous before God. Peter also acknowledged in verses Acts 10:34-35 that God had already accepted Cornelius, before he met him.

[FONT=&quot]What is your definition of regenerate? [/FONT]

If you really had read this thread through, then you would have seen that I touched this issue in post #94. The gospel has always been preached, and believed, from the days of Adam until the end.

And please note, that the Holy Spirit does not come upon Cornelius until verse 44! So we know full well when he received the Holy Spirit. Acts 10 is a complete story of Gospel witnessing and salvation from beginning to end.

Yes, only regenerate persons receives the Holy Spirit. The world cannot receive Him (John 14:17).

 

[MLN76]

Philippians 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13. for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

That says to me that even the desire to seek Him initially, and then afterward to do "His good purpose" comes from Him. It is all His work. Certainly there are ways we are led to do "works" of God, but even those are worked into us, and carried out by motivation and strength from His Spirit...all His ideas. No good thing exists within us, in our "inward" man as Paul says.

It is God who works in us to will (to want to) do His good purpose
It is God who works in us to act (be able to actually carry out the things)

 

[Abiding]

OK. I await your response. Personally I find all ideas of proceeding or (the arminian-methodist-papist take of) prevenient grace unscriptural and mere man-made constructions to "save" some sort of idea that man has a "part" to fulfill in his justification. What the issue boils down to are the crucial issues of sin, righteousness and judgment. If man is dead in his sins or not, if the righteousness of God (revealed in the gospel) is a righteousness outside of the sinner, imputed to him, or not. And all related issues. Usually it will show up when people are to distinguish law and gospel if they have understood this or not.

Tribesman, im sorry i didnt keep up with this thread, but as i said its a new subject for me. But im set back
with the historical positional names.

But so far it seems that you are just as biased as you imply your opposition is. So it seems you think that
man being empowered by the power of God to choose is wrong...well thats just too hard at this time to
see through. Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness. What is your issue with
man playing a part in his salvation?

I understand man is incapable to choose or even care about God in his natural state. I cant understand why
its a problem for there to be grace and enlightenment for man to be given a choice. How for instance...and i have dozens of texts behind my understanding....would it be said that God will give a man over to a delusion
because he would not receive the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?

 

[enochson]

man frist doctrine doesn't fly in my father creation. hessey if one would look it up as written by paul means "to make a choice"

 

[A-Omega]

A-Omega,

I am doubtful about your intention to "discuss" here, as well as your level of seriousity, seeing the ranting of your dislike of calvinism.

This is not an argument. It's a straw man and a diversion. I am using nothing but Scripture to back up my assertions. And I am standing by statements that you are misusing scripture, out of context to support your Calvinist notions. I have provided the scripture and the proper exegesis to show this. You have no response. You are just now choosing to try and make a diversion instead. I honestly have no idea why you'd do this given the detailed, scriptural responses I have posted. If you disagree with me, fine. But to say I'm not being serious, or say that I am ranting (when I am clearly not) is disingenuous, incorrect and 100% pure straw man tactic.

I will yet make an input here, in case other readers might be interested. But I will not repeat myself and will not play a tennis game with "you are wrong" posts going back and forth. The level must be acceptable, I reiterate that I will only reply to serious posts.

You do not have to respond to me. But I object to you characterizing my posts as not serious. I take the BIble very seriously. And I use it in context. You are just copping to these statements because you have no answer using sound Scriptural interpretation.

Total depravity (or whatever term one prefers) is hinted at in many scriptures. There are also plenty of scriptures to show the abominable characteristics of the unregenerate. Your take on Rom.3 and Ps.10 and 14 makes no sense when you understand that it basically applies to all unregenerate,

Again, I have shown the meaning of these passages, in context. Your interpretation is dead wrong. And now you are just repeating yourself instead of going to the text and delineating its proper contextual meaning.

who are at enmity both against God and His people (Gal.4:29). Paul was not just addressing some unregenerate jews, he said that he had "proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin" (Rom.3:9), concluding that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom.3.23). All here means - all.

Once again, you are just taking phrases and words out of context. I have already explained that Paul was addressing Jews in chapters 3 and 4. And I explained that he was making a very specific point that has nothing to do with total depravity as Calvinists submit. I have gone to the whole chapter, in context, including chapter 4, which is the conclusion of the point Paul is making in chapter 3. Have all people sinned, yes? But that is not the point of the chapter.

It is funny when you repeatedly use the word "context", yet at the same time you refuse to interpret scripture with scripture. Such non-systematic "interpretation" will never be contextual, it is always selective. Which you have given a "good" example of here.

As for Cornelius, you say "we know for an absolute fact that at this point not only was Cornelius not saved". I will ask you with your own question: "Where is the scripture to support this???". Where is that "absolute fact" found?

It's found here:

44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

We see the exact point of Cornelius' salvation. And he is baptized right after. Not to mention, the CONTEXTUAL point of this chapter is God instructing Peter that the Gospel should delivered to all people, including Gentiles. So Peter goes and realizes this and preaches the Gospel which Cornelius obviously then believed because the Holy Spirit fell upon him. So going by scripture, in context, Cornelius was not saved at the start of chapter 10.

You also said "Cornelius was seeking God before he was saved. Cornelius pleased God before he even knew about Jesus. It’s clear Biblical fact." This is but your own opinion. Yet you are talking about "adding to scripture", what are these statements of yours other than just that? Do you use one measurement for others and another one for yourself? Are you serious?

Of course I'm serious. And don't call me Shirley (sorry, I couldn't resist). Here is my proof to support my assertion:

Acts 10 1There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 3He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

The plain meaning of the text makes it clear that Cornelius was a man who was seeking God. He was man who feared God. He was a man who prayed. And we know he pleased The Lord because an angel came and commended him for it. And again, all this was before he was saved.

I will say that the charachteristics that Cornelius had does not match up with the unregenerate. It says that Cornelius and his house feared God. Scriptures says that those who fear the Lord possess God's salvation (Ps. 85:9)

Ok, let's look at this verse and see if your interpretation is correct:

Surely his salvation is nigh them that fear him; that glory may dwell in our land.

Now in the context of this passage is debate because some think the sons of Korah were still writing at the time of the Babylonian exile (so it could just mean rescue from Babylon). But let's assume "salvation" here means eternal life. It does not say "those who fear the Lord possess God's salvation " It says that it is "nigh them" meaning, it is near or close. And that is precisely what it was for Cornelius! He was not saved in the beginning of chapter 10, but salvation was so close, it was coming to his very door!

, enjoy God's mercy (Ps. 103:17)

Agreed. And how merciful Our Lord was to Cornelius that He sent an angel to speak to him and sent the Apostle Peter to his home for a one-on-one witnessing!

, and please God (Ps. 147:11).

Which again, goes to my point. He pleased God before he was saved. Glad we agree on that as well.

Cornelius must have had faith, since without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb.11:6). Unsaved men do not fear God (Rom 3:18; Ps 36:1).

Don't you see that you are running into contradictions?? You say that Cornelius feared God in the beginning of the chapter. You I believe acknowledge that God send Peter to preach the Gospel to Cornelius. So obviously Cornelius feared God before being saved. You have run into a logical dilemma because you are injecting your own man made rules into the Bible about being "unregenerate" based on an incorrect interpretation of Romans 3 and other chapters. The Bible will never contradict. So by default, your reasoning must be wrong. This is why I said this chapter single-handedly refutes your theory. Because, it like, does.

Cornelius prayers were even "come up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4), before Peter shared the gospel with him. Prov.15:29 says that God only hears the prayers of the righteous.

Have you read the book of Jonah?? The ENTIRE BOOK is about a city of pagan idol-worshiping, greedy, blasphemous people who were judged for destruction. Yet they decided to pray and hope that maybe, God would hear them. And God not only heard them He decided not to destroy them. The whole city of Nineveh was spared. God does indeed hear the prayers of sinners. So if you feel there is a contradiction, you need to start looking deeper in the text. The verse proverbs says God hears the prayers of the righteous. It does NOT say He doesn't hear the prayers of the unsaved. See, how I can keep calling you on misusing Scripture??

There is but one way to be righteous before God. Peter also acknowledged in verses Acts 10:34-35 that God had already accepted Cornelius, before he met him.

And this is where the rubber really hits the road. This passage you are completely using out of context to once again try and force some Calvinistic regeneration into the text where it's just not.

25And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 26But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
30And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The clear meaning, in context of verses 34-35 is that the Gospel was to be preached to all people, Jew and Gentile. The Jewish believers in Christ were no more special in God's eyes. And they were to go into the homes of Gentiles (something previously forbidden out of a need for ritual cleanliness) and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Remember, after Peter has the vision of the scroll of animals, the Holy Spirit told him directly about the 3 men sent to him by Cornelius. So then hearing Cornelius discuss his dream was even further confirmation that God was fully behind and in control of this entire situation. And Peter's original vision was now all making sense to him.

Peter is articulating this revelation to Cornelius. He is not telling Cornelius "you were accepted by God before this day" he is saying "anyone, from any nation, who believes in the name of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, shall be saved"!!! WOW. I am stunned that even this powerful, beautiful and very well known passage could be twisted so.

I hope maybe now you can see that I do the Bible very seriously. And I also take its misuse seriously, hence my use of the word context. Make no mistake, I think your man-made theories are unbiblical and a result of misused scripture. But that does not mean I am just attacking you or ranting. I am trying to show you the truth of scripture in a constructive, respectful manner. Again, you may still disagree, which is your right, but please do not try to mischaracterize the way I am posting. God bless.

 

[A-Omega]

Correction: In the second to last paragraph I meant to say:

Peter is articulating this revelation to Cornelius. He is not telling Cornelius "you were saved by God before this day"

 

[tribesman]

Philippians 2:12Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, 13. for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.

That says to me that even the desire to seek Him initially, and then afterward to do "His good purpose" comes from Him. It is all His work. Certainly there are ways we are led to do "works" of God, but even those are worked into us, and carried out by motivation and strength from His Spirit...all His ideas. No good thing exists within us, in our "inward" man as Paul says.

It is God who works in us to will (to want to) do His good purpose
It is God who works in us to act (be able to actually carry out the things)

Agreed. God does the whole work from start until end, as Paul said in Rom.8:28-31, in theological terms this is called monergism. The works after regeneration are a fruit of the Spirit, motivated out of love and gratitude to God, for saving unworthy sinners as ourselves. These works do not have any part in attaining or keeping salvation.

 

[tribesman]

But so far it seems that you are just as biased as you imply your opposition is. So it seems you think that man being empowered by the power of God to choose is wrong...well thats just too hard at this time to see through. Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness. What is your issue with man playing a part in his salvation?

Of course I'm into my position as others are into theirs. And my position is that man plays no synergistic "part" in his salvation.

I understand man is incapable to choose or even care about God in his natural state. I cant understand why its a problem for there to be grace and enlightenment for man to be given a choice. How for instance...and i have dozens of texts behind my understanding....would it be said that God will give a man over to a delusion because he would not receive the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness?

Not sure I understand you exactly here. What I am saying is that ideas such as prevenient grace and "given a free will to choose at gospel calling" are unscriptural "solutions" that men has made in order to suit and "save" their doctrinal schemes, which they have not build upon the Bible. I want to go strictly on scripture here and respect its clarity on the matter. And it does speak clear on these issues. If someone is dead in their trespasses and sins, then they are dead in them, and God cannot be asking them to do or choose anything spiritually good, that would assist them in being justified. God has to raise them up from the dead, first.

And of course, being sent strong delusion from God to believe the lie and receive stronger damnation is a reality. That is why we have to watch over and safeguard the teaching and doctrine.

 

[Abiding]

rev. 3: 20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Matthew 11:25-30 25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.


So in other words these are verses to the regenerate...yet till they are regenerate they cant understand them...if so would they
have no value? right?


also the parable of the sower and the seed seems confusing from what i think your position is.

 

[tribesman]

rev. 3: 20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This was written to the Church of Laodicea.

Matthew 11:25-30 25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

26Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.

27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

This is a proof-text for the doctrines of grace. Thanks for sharing.

28Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Are all able to come to Jesus?

John.6

[44] No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

How does someone come to Jesus?

John.6


[37] All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

So in other words these are verses to the regenerate...yet till they are regenerate they cant understand them...if so would they have no value? right?

They have the greatest value. God is calling people to Him by means of the Word. And they sheep of God, for whom Jesus laid down His life, will eventually hear it.

also the parable of the sower and the seed seems confusing from what i think your position is.

What is confusing? And what do you think my position is on the parable of the sower? You tell me.

 

[A-Omega]

So in other words these are verses to the regenerate...yet till they are regenerate they cant understand them...if so would they
have no value? right?

.

Let's also not forget that the word "regenerate" and "unregenerate" are not used in the Bible. They are just man-made terms used in man-made rules. Which is why your examples expose the flaws in Tribesman's theory.

 

[tribesman]

This is not an argument. It's a straw man and a diversion. I am using nothing but Scripture to back up my assertions. And I am standing by statements that you are misusing scripture, out of context to support your Calvinist notions. I have provided the scripture and the proper exegesis to show this. You have no response. You are just now choosing to try and make a diversion instead. I honestly have no idea why you'd do this given the detailed, scriptural responses I have posted. If you disagree with me, fine. But to say I'm not being serious, or say that I am ranting (when I am clearly not) is disingenuous, incorrect and 100% pure straw man tactic. ... You do not have to respond to me. But I object to you characterizing my posts as not serious. I take the BIble very seriously. And I use it in context. You are just copping to these statements because you have no answer using sound Scriptural interpretation ... Again, I have shown the meaning of these passages, in context. Your interpretation is dead wrong. And now you are just repeating yourself instead of going to the text and delineating its proper contextual meaning ... Once again, you are just taking phrases and words out of context. I have already explained that Paul was addressing Jews in chapters 3 and 4. And I explained that he was making a very specific point that has nothing to do with total depravity as Calvinists submit. I have gone to the whole chapter, in context, including chapter 4, which is the conclusion of the point Paul is making in chapter 3. Have all people sinned, yes? But that is not the point of the chapter ... [And so it goes on and on and on...]

See this one above? Or you still don't get it? Well, that's exactly my point! QED. I could also go on writing words like straw man, dead wrong, out of context and diversion every other line and commend my own views as scriptural beyond proving. It'd benefit nothing to the thread! And as for your dislike of calvinism, I couldn't care less. Who cares? It's off-topic. It's not about someone being biased, we are all biased. It's not even about being right or wrong, it is about adding relevant and beneficial material to the thread. OK? Nuff' said about that.

The real serious questions here centers around regeneration, if there be various forms of righteousness in the OT vs the NT, if the gospel was something "new" that came with the earthly ministry of Christ. For example, for someone to say that someone is "just" in biblical terms, it must always principally mean the very same thing. The OT Saints must have been just, righteous, on the very same terms as the NT Saints.

It is also a matter of anthropology, or the view of man. Of course, if anyone denies the sinful nature of man, he will as a result believe that some men may have more and better "abilities" than others to seek God and even to please Him in that state. However, seen in the light of what the totality of scripture says about man, this will meet with serious contradictions and extreme flaws and diverse impossibilities.

To say that Cornelius was a just man who feared God and yet at the same time maintain that he was NOT regenerate in that state, or that he was NOT regenerate when receiving the Spirit will cause enormous problems in systematically understanding scripture. Actually, the same thing applies to the disciples. Some will even say that the disciples, also called apostles, were not born again before they received the Spirit at the day of Pentecost.

Do you see why some people will object to the latter notions?

 

[tribesman]

Let's also not forget that the word "regenerate" and "unregenerate" are not used in the Bible. They are just man-made terms used in man-made rules. Which is why your examples expose the flaws in Tribesman's theory.

The Bible uses the wording "born again". You're talking about straw men, and you post something like that? Or just splitting hairs are we?

 

[shroom2]

...To say that Cornelius was a just man who feared God and yet at the same time maintain that he was NOT regenerate in that state, or that he was NOT regenerate when receiving the Spirit will cause enormous problems in systematically understanding scripture. Actually, the same thing applies to the disciples. Some will even say that the disciples, also called apostles, were not born again before they received the Spirit at the day of Pentecost.

They were not. It was impossible for anyone to become born again before it became available, and it did not become available until the day of pentecost. Cornelius and his household did not receive the new birth until Peter told them about Christ, and they believed.

 

[tribesman]

They were not. It was impossible for anyone to become born again before it became available, and it did not become available until the day of pentecost. Cornelius and his household did not receive the new birth until Peter told them about Christ, and they believed.

Jesus said the world cannot receive the Spirit.

John.14

[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

How would you explain that these Saints were righteous and blameless before God (before the cross, before the day of Pentecost)?

Luke.1

[5] There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
[6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

[Abiding]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abiding
rev. 3: 20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
This was written to the Church of Laodicea. what does saying this was written to the Laodicean Church mean?

 

[tribesman]

what does saying this was written to the Laodicean Church mean?

It means we cannot say that this is a universal call.

IF any man hears does not imply that all are able to hear.

Rev.3

[6] He that hath an ear, let himhear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

[13] He that hath an ear, let himhear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

[22] He that hath an ear, let himhear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

He that hath an ear, means he who has that ear - to hear with. To hear what the Spirit says to the churches. It does not mean that all have that.

 

[shroom2]

Jesus said the world cannot receive the Spirit.

People caught up in this world, who do not seek God, will not receive holy spirit.

How would you explain that these Saints were righteous and blameless before God (before the cross, before the day of Pentecost)?

What's to explain? They were righteous before God. But they were not born again because it was not available to be born again before the day of pentecost.