The Absurdity of ‘Born a Sinner’

[eternally-gratefull]

I'd go a step further and say that we are already drowned. Dead in trespasses and sins (Eph.2:1-3). Then God, in His infinite mercy, revives, quickens and raises us up from the dead. He couldn't "ask" us whether we liked to be saved from death or not, He saved us out of His love because He knew we couldn't say "yes" to it anyway, as we were dead and lacked all ability of positive response. Once we realize who resurrected us from the dead and what we got saved from, joy and trust in the Savior follows.

if this was the case. God would not have spent half the scripture telling us what he did to save us, What he did to bring us to the point we can believe in him, Tell us we have no excuse for rejecting him, because he wrote his laws in our hearts. Then based on all these things, tell us to call out on his name ot be saved, Believe in him, Trust him,

He who believes is not condemned. He who DOES NOT BELIEVE is condemned already, why? because God did not chose him? No! Because he did not believe in the only son of God.

 

[tribesman]

You are talking about salvation there, but to be saved we need to come to Jesus.

We are all talking about salvation right now. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him/her to Jesus. It is the work of God that someone believes in Him.

John.6

[27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
[28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
[29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

[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.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I don't find enough scriptural evidence for that position. It is a matter of how GOD wills it.

1. Romans 9 is an argument against Jews who believed God chose Isreal based on the righteousness of their forefathers. Not how God saved some people and rejected others. The context of calvan's interpretation of romans 9 is way off base.

2. Romans 9 does not say a thing about how or why anyone was saved. Thus to try to use it in this way will not work.

3. God willed to gather Isreal in his arms, But they were not willing. This is all we need to know.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

NOT the word of man, least of all a man called Calvin. The Pharisees were the same.

You do not know much about calvanism. A pharisee trusted their works. Like arminius. A calvanist does not. Calvins beliefs comes only from the fact he is afraid to boast of anything. I understand the core of their doctrines. Like I said, they are our brothers.

sorry, but to compair them to a pharisee is way offline here my friend. They are nothing like the pharisees. This would be the way of arminius not calvin.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The problem is that the will of natural, fallen man is only good for saying "no" to God, it cannot say "yes" until he's regenerated.

This is not true.

One can not become regenerate UNTIL the thing which makes him dead is taken away. Justification thus must precede regeneration, because without justification, there can be no regeneration. A person is dead to God until he is justified.

we are justified by faith. thus faith must precede both justification and regeneration.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Wow that took a long time to catch up. My wife is screaming at me, we need to run errands..lol. Will be back later to continue our fruitful discussions

 

[PS]

We are all talking about salvation right now. No man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him/her to Jesus. It is the work of God that someone believes in Him.

According to you that's going to be a NO then.

 

[zone]

This is not true.

One can not become regenerate UNTIL the thing which makes him dead is taken away. Justification thus must precede regeneration, because without justification, there can be no regeneration. A person is dead to God until he is justified.

we are justified by faith. thus faith must precede both justification and regeneration.

inseparable.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

 

[tribesman]

According to you that's going to be a NO then.

According to scripture natural, carnal, unregenerate man has no ability to say "yes" to follow God. It takes the new birth to give that response to God.

John.1

[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[superdave5221]

to the 2 Peter verse, best to check the original Greek wording.
also, see: the whole counsel of God.

as to the rest...vessels of wrath to show His power,
...vessels of mercy to make known the riches of His glory. (Romans 9:22-23)

love you, superdave.
-ellie

Hey Psychomom! Nice to see ya!

Yep, the Greek, and the context check out.

The youth pastor at my church did a worship service talk recently in which he held up a coloring book that his four year old son was coloring and he showed where his son did not always color within the lines. But you know what, he was proud of it anyway, and it went on the refrigerator.

It's not a perfect analogy, for God is certainly not proud of our sins, but He still loves us, even though we do not always color within the lines. David was responsible for some very heinous crimes, and yet God said that he was a man after His own heart.

I really believe that God does love EVERYONE! And if God loves everyone, it certainly makes sense that He would want EVERYONE to be saved.

So why isn't everyone saved?


Love you too!

Dave

 

[progressivenerdgirl]

According to scripture natural, carnal, unregenerate man has no ability to say "yes" to follow God. It takes the new birth to give that response to God.

I have not read every post on here but I am pleasantly surprised I agree with what I have read .
Good to see someone defending the Reformed position - is it just me or is there an upsurge of Reformed Christians these days?

 

[PS]

According to scripture natural, carnal, unregenerate man has no ability to say "yes" to follow God. It takes the new birth to give that response to God.

And Nicodemus didn't have to do anything even though he was seeking?

 

[superdave5221]

According to scripture natural, carnal, unregenerate man has no ability to say "yes" to follow God. It takes the new birth to give that response to God.

Are you saying that we are regenerated, and then we say "yes" to regeneration? And then we repent? Or do we repent first?

I am just wondering about the order here.

 

[tribesman]

Are you saying that we are regenerated, and then we say "yes" to regeneration? And then we repent? Or do we repent first?

I am just wondering about the order here.

When it comes to Ordo Salutis I personally believe that regeneration preceeds both faith and repentance.

 

[PS]

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

 

[psychomom]

Hey Psychomom! Nice to see ya!

Yep, the Greek, and the context check out.

The youth pastor at my church did a worship service talk recently in which he held up a coloring book that his four year old son was coloring and he showed where his son did not always color within the lines. But you know what, he was proud of it anyway, and it went on the refrigerator.

It's not a perfect analogy, for God is certainly not proud of our sins, but He still loves us, even though we do not always color within the lines. David was responsible for some very heinous crimes, and yet God said that he was a man after His own heart.

I really believe that God does love EVERYONE! And if God loves everyone, it certainly makes sense that He would want EVERYONE to be saved.

So why isn't everyone saved?


Love you too!

Dave

Dave...none of this was easy to comprehend, and honestly it was more difficult to accept, but the Lord waited patiently for me to drop my 'intellect' in this matter for almost 20 years. ( @ my intellect)

Slowly, slowly, I began to connect verses, and a couple of people here helped in the last few months, to connect the last few dots.
Of course, my loving husband did the part God had for him to play, too.

My NASB has the word 'all' where you're quoting 'everyone' in the 2 Peter verse, and I believe that means 'all of the redeemed'; or perhaps better, 'all of the chosen ones'. Peter is talking to the redeemed, I think, and that's who the verse means.

Monergism, with all it entails, is really the only way God gets all the glory (which is right).
But more importantly, it's the only way I can see the whole Bible saying the same thing.
Do we fight and murmur against God for not having 'everyone' born into the nation of Israel in the OT? Do we say He was unjust to not allow absolutely everyone be born into His chosen people?

God absolutely does love us all, even when we 'color outside the lines'. Us all being His people...His chosen, predestined ones.
Not that it gives us any special---anything...at all! Other than belonging to Him.
Which, I know you know, is awesome. ♥

love,
el

 

[zone]

God absolutely does love us all, even when we 'color outside the lines'.

whew! that's a relief!

 

[unclefester]

But if God changes our will, why not change EVERYONE'S will, since Peter says that God wants everyone to be saved? 2 Peter 3:9.

Peter says that God wants EVERYONE to repent. Is God not powerful enough to change everyone's will? Or are you saying that God only changes who He wants, and Peter is lying?

If we are honest with ourselves, we'd all have to admit that if we've considered this question, we have all struggled to reconcile an answer. On that note Dave, allow me to make a fool of myself with the following hypothetical scenario I have lots and lots of money. And I want to give you a million dollars just to make your life easier. And I insist ... because I like you and giving it away isn't going to diminish anything of my abundance. Sooo ... now Dave's living in comfort and leisure and is a very happy man. BUT ... where would Dave be if he had chosen to refuse my gift ? Would he not be a fool for doing so ? Of course he would. And when we consider the reason(s) why Dave or anyone would refuse such a gesture, the only logical explanation for such an action would be a preservation of pride ... and/or an internal distrust directed towards me, the giver ... and a suspicion therein of me, the giver's intent. Any time we discuss "freewill" in the context of God's generous offer to us in Christ, it would be remiss of us to consider His offer without also including the content of His gift being offered. The offer of the gift means nothing without first contemplating it's content. And it is at this juncture where the question of freewill and accountability also comes into play. Who but ourselves could be held accountable for refusing .... and what excuse could we possibly give for being so foolish ? Yes ... we can exercise our freewill to be foolish. But exercising our freewill in choosing to accept the gift (and benefitting therein) has nothing to do with us. The entire substance of this scenario has everything to do with the Giver, without Whom, there wouldn't even exist the question. I spose' what I'm trying to say is that when all things are considered, what choice is there really to make ? Am I making any sense ? Come ... let us reason together.

 

[superdave5221]

Dave...none of this was easy to comprehend, and honestly it was more difficult to accept, but the Lord waited patiently for me to drop my 'intellect' in this matter for almost 20 years. ( @ my intellect)

Slowly, slowly, I began to connect verses, and a couple of people here helped in the last few months, to connect the last few dots.
Of course, my loving husband did the part God had for him to play, too.

My NASB has the word 'all' where you're quoting 'everyone' in the 2 Peter verse, and I believe that means 'all of the redeemed'; or perhaps better, 'all of the chosen ones'. Peter is talking to the redeemed, I think, and that's who the verse means.

Monergism, with all it entails, is really the only way God gets all the glory (which is right).
But more importantly, it's the only way I can see the whole Bible saying the same thing.
Do we fight and murmur against God for not having 'everyone' born into the nation of Israel in the OT? Do we say He was unjust to not allow absolutely everyone be born into His chosen people?

God absolutely does love us all, even when we 'color outside the lines'. Us all being His people...His chosen, predestined ones.
Not that it gives us any special---anything...at all! Other than belonging to Him.
Which, I know you know, is awesome. ♥

love,
el

Thanks Psychomom, I will consider your words.

 

[zone]

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

John 15:25
But the word that is written in their Law must be fulfilled: ‘They hated me without a cause.’

If we are honest with ourselves, we'd all have to admit that if we've considered this question, we have all struggled to reconcile an answer. On that note Dave, allow me to make a fool of myself with the following hypothetical scenario I have lots and lots of money. And I want to give you a million dollars just to make your life easier. And I insist ... because I like you and giving it away isn't going to diminish anything of my abundance. Sooo ... now Dave's living in comfort and leisure and is a very happy man. BUT ... where would Dave be if he had chosen to refuse my gift ? Would he not be a fool for doing so ? Of course he would. And when we consider the reason(s) why Dave or anyone would refuse such a gesture, the only logical explanation for such an action would be a preservation of pride ... and/or an internal distrust directed towards me, the giver ... and a suspicion therein of me, the giver's intent. Any time we discuss "freewill" in the context of God's generous offer to us in Christ, it would be remiss of us to consider His offer without also including the content of His gift being offered. The offer of the gift means nothing without first contemplating it's content. And it is at this juncture where the question of freewill and accountability also comes into play. Who but ourselves could be held accountable for refusing .... and what excuse could we possibly give for being so foolish ? Yes ... we can exercise our freewill to be foolish. But exercising our freewill in choosing to accept the gift (and benefitting therein) has nothing to do with us. The entire substance of this scenario has everything to do with the Giver, without Whom, there wouldn't even exist the question. I spose' what I'm trying to say is that when all things are considered, what choice is there really to make ? Am I making any sense ? Come ... let us reason together.

BAM!