How to be Born Again

FreeGrace2 said:
Prove this by citing th post #'s where you supposedly explained what you think "refused" means, and the post where I supposedly ignored that post.

You keep failing to prove anything you claim.

Your claims are empty
That's what I've been saying. You haven't been proving anything. In fact, you haven't yet supported your claims with Scripture.

So your claims are empty.

I'm still waiting for the post #'s where you explained what "refused" means and how it doesn't have anything to do with choice.

Well then, please address 1 Peter 3:18 which says that Christ suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous.

So, by your own admission, it is ONLY the "elect" that are unrighteous and needed Jesus to die for them.

So, what you may not be able to figure out is that your fuzzy logic leads directly to universalism. Christ didn't die for the non-unrighteous, so they are going to heaven anyway.

It's those pesky unrighteous that weren't going to get to heaven unless Christ died for their unrighteousness.

So, everyone is going to heaven, if you actually realize what your 'logic' leads to.

Then why can't you provide even 1 verse that actually says what each point means?

Your lack of evidence is appalling. You have no reason at all to believe what you do.

Ha ha. You can't even show any evidence from Scripture regarding TULIP. So why believe it since it isn't in the Bible?

And if it IS in the Bible, why aren't you aware of any verses that teach any of the points of TULIP?

throughfaith said:
I'm Just a bible alone guy. That's it . Thats what separates you and I.
What a silly comment to someone who is a "bible guy".

So apparently you think those who are Bible alone" guys are deceived. Well, that actually makes sense, coming from someone who can't find any support for his views from the Bible.

Well, we know who Satan has deceived.

throughfaith said:
If you can show where the bible SAYS what you believe then we will know there is some truth in Calvinism.
If you really do think that, you are certainly the deceived guy. No, you haven't shown ANYTHING from the Bible that supports your claims.

The Bible is God's Word. He has already provided the truth for everyone.

But I recall that after another poster quoted a verse to you and asked if you believe it, you retorted with "I don't have to".

Which says everything we need to know about where your mind is.

I have told you.

The Elect are naturally unrighteous sinners. Duh!

I already have, you don't pay attention.

If you don't believe the Truths of Tulip you don't believe the Gospel of God's Grace.

Like I said only God can show you the truth. You can otherwise read the bible until doomsday and will remain ignorant of the truth.

Your idea is based on the thinking that the term "all" in the Bible always means literally "all". I have shown earlier the flaw in this and how it not always makes sense.

This robot-thingy kinda argument is old and worn out since long ago. If you understood what total depravity meant, as stated in Eph.2:1-10, then you'd realize we're dealing with dead people here and calling someone who raise the dead a dictator who are dealing with "mindless robots" makes...no...sense. OK?

Where in the Bible do you find the notion that "the gospel is an offer"?

How can the blind see, unless someone open their eyes? Faith is said to be a fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22), something which the unregenerate cannot have since they cannot receive the Spirit (John 14:17) and it is a commandment to repent and believe (Mark 1:15,11:22, 1John.3:23). But the unregenerate cannot keep God's commandments. Which is to say that giving a commandment does NOT imply universal ability to keep same. The rest is easy math.

Natural man's "knowledge" of God's order in creation does not equal salvific knowledge. That natural man is very able to resist God is abundantly clear and nothing I would contest by any stretch. It is the UNABILITY of natural man to surrender to God that I stress here.

Errm, typo? You had it, "sin must be justified"? Meaning the sinner must be justified, I take it? And, yes, God do justify the ungodly, however not their sin.

Where does it say we can not? And does it have to be a time-lapse between them two or even any distinction at all? Your problem here is not that you put faith into its right place of justification but that you are making faith (as worked up by the ability of unregenerate man) a condition and cause of regeneration.

Yes, justification indeed comes to us through faith, that does not imply (nor is it explicitly stated in the Bible) this faith is the result of something we "choose" to trust. Like somebody unborn first ask their parents to be born, saying "I choose to be born!" and as a result of that he is born.

Yes, Israel (God's covenant community) resisted God's grace, and Israel as a nation was called upon a few times to make a choice. Same thing applies in the NT. I affirm this and I am all along saying that God was addressing the covenant community - not the entire world of gentiles and unbelievers. You do make a difference between Israel and the Gentiles when it comes to certain promises to Israel, however here you seem to fail to make that important difference.

And I never denied that people (jew or gentile alike) can resist God, what I deny is that unregenerate jew and gentile can not surrender unto God, whilst yet in the flesh, meaning still unregenerate. Those who persist in preaching man’s free will and personal responsibility always goof out on this, making no difference between the covenant community and the worldlings.

The whole thing about the doctrines of grace is to hammer home who is alone the sole Author and finisher of our faith and to give due and diligent glory to the One doing so, not at any part (however tiny) sharing that glory with man. Thus: To God alone be the glory.

This sums up everything you said// The rest is easy math.// This is how Calvinism is supported . Now could you show verses which SAY what you claim ? Literally , I mean.

FreeGrace2 said:
Prove this by citing th post #'s where you supposedly explained what you think "refused" means, and the post where I supposedly ignored that post.

You keep failing to prove anything you claim.

Your claims are empty

That's what I've been saying. You haven't been proving anything. In fact, you haven't yet supported your claims with Scripture.

So your claims are empty.
Yeah, all you 'told' me was something about commanding someone to do something they are unable to do is a legitimate command.

That is absurd, of course.

But the point is that refusing something is a CHOICE. Proving free will. And proving that believing is a free choice.

You haven't ;proven otherwise.

You are, of course, free to CHOOSE your own opinions, even when they are absurd.

That's my point. That kind of thinking means the non-elect are NOT sinners.

So your theology is essentially universalism; that Jesus Christ died for the "naturally unrighteous sinners" so they could go to heaven.

That would mean the rest of mankind didn't need Jesus to die for them, as they are NOT "naturally unrighteous sinners", and they get to go to heaven anyway.

But I suppose you won't even get what I'm saying.

Then why can't you provide even 1 verse that actually says what each point means?

Your lack of evidence is appalling. You have no reason at all to believe what you do.
You NEVER have provided ANY verse that states ANY of the TULIP points.

So quit making stuff up, because it reveals your real character.

You haven't YET provided any verses for ANY of the points of TULIP, so why should I believe any of them?

The points are unbiblical. And there are many verses that plainly refute the points of TULIP.

How true. And God HAS shown me the Truth. He made His Word available to me, and gave me His Holy Spirit in order to understand His Holy Word.

But I wonder what happened to you. We both have His Word, yet you have demonstrated over and over just how little you understand of His Word. Why is that?

You believe things that you can't even defend. You have no verses that say what you claim. Unlike myself.

Well, that's exactly what you've been doing. Unlike myself.

This is the typical argument from calvinists about verses that plainly SAY that Christ died for all.

NO ONE argues that the word 'all' ALWAYS means everyone. How absurd!

The key is context. ONLY IF the context shows that the 'all' applies to a limited group does it not mean "everyone in humanity".

But, WHEN there is NOTHING in the context to show that a limited group is being referred to, then the word 'all' DOES ABSOLUTELY MEAN EVERYONE IN HUMANITY.

John 1:29 - The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

John 4:24 - They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

2 Cor 5-
14 For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

1 Tim 4:10 - That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2 - He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 4:14 - And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

I included the word "world" as well.

So, now please address each verse/context to prove that the author was ONLY referring to a limited group of people, and NOT everyone, or the whole world.

And it is STILL very effective at revealing the old and worn out theology of calvinism. If God has to regenerate people in order for them to believe, He is working against their own desires. So He is essentially treating them like robots or puppets. He's pulling the strings. Which is total nonsense.

What doesn't make sense is treating spiritually dead people like they are physically dead and can't think or make decisions. That is what is absurd.

Titus 2:11 for one.

it may not always make sense. But in the case of a loving God, their can be no other way.

you can say you are a loving God, yet not show that love, doing so walks right into satans hands. And makes him a winner not a loser,

I always say if the shoe fits, it may be old to you, but it fits perfectly with what you are promoting,

and ps. Like I said, dead people can walk, they can talk, they can make decisions, they can eat or sleep, they can do lots of things, so your example of a dead person is actually less realistic than the robot

where have you ever seen a gift not something that is offered? And what do you think it means when it says whoever believes, whoever calls, whoever repents etc etc?



what do you think God does when he convicts the world of sin righteousness and judgment, the fruit of the spirit is given to them who are saved after they recieve the spirit, i would think someone like you understood this fact, repentance and faith for salvation are different things,

yep he is, just like you and I could resist, it does not mean we will. What you fail to grasp is the power of God in a persons life, to bring them to repentance, Peter understood it, you have the words of eternal life, he could have like the rest left also. But why did he not? They did not believe, he was still seeking even though he did not understand at the time, he kept walking.

smh, really, you know what I meant let’s stop with the nonsense.

yes, sin must be forgive, justification must occure, until then, a person remains dead, they have not been regenerated yet,

another wasted time.

same time? Get real man, thats made up stuff, your puppet master God is not real And I have no more desire to continue this nonsensical discussion,