Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Timtofly]

No, you're making an erroneous "point." No one can choose to be born of the Spirit, just as none of us could have possibly chosen to be physically born of our earthly mother and father. Either God gives this second birth ~ which is by and of Himself in the person of the Holy Spirit, of course ~ or not, and it is according to whether or not God chooses to have mercy on the person or not. It is not about the will of the person, but the will of God, else we would say that man is sovereign over God, which of course is a perfectly ridiculous thought... And it has always been this way, and will always be thus.

Humanly speaking, it is a matter of the heart~ one's heart always drives his/her will ~ and unless God changes the heart ~ removes the heart of stone and gives the person a heart of flesh, thereby putting a new spirit within the person, as Ezekiel, and thus Paul, says ~ that person will remain dead in his/her sin, his/her heart will remain of stone and therefore never come to love God... indeed will continue to choose the opposite, because he/she, in that case, remains of his/her father the devil, and thus a slave to unrighteousness. But if God does change the heart, then he or she will not fail to then come to belief in and love of God... and then freely choose God. As John says, "We love because God first loved us" (1 John 4:19, emphasis added).


No, remains cut off ~ like the rich man in Jesus's parable in Luke 16, and, at the end of the age will be resurrected to judgment rather than eternal life. And in the final Judgment ~ which is depicted as the Great White Throne judgment event in Revelation 20 ~ will be one of the ones as in Matthew 25:41-45 on Jesus's left and, in the words of Psalm 1, will not be in the congregation of the righteous and will not stand in ~ will not come out on the good side of ~ this final Judgment. When this final judgment is rendered, he/she will depart obediently into judgment, away from the New Heaven and New Earth.


This is very much true regarding unbelievers. If they were not born again during their lives, they cannot be born again after their death.


Hmm, you seem to be speaking of believers here. Faith is the gift of God, Timtofly, it is not something someone is able to somehow manufacture in himself or herself. And obedience is something caused by God as a result of the second birth and this raising unto newness of life, as both Ezekiel and Paul make clear:

• Ezekiel (quoting God): "I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes and be careful to obey My rules" (Ezekiel 36:27).
• Paul: "...this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:9-10).

Nope. See above.


The Gospel has its intended effect to each person at all times. Faith does come by hearing, as Paul says in Romans 10, but not always, as it still depends on whether God has mercy/compassion on the person or not... whether he removes the heart of stone or not. See above. As Paul just previously has said, it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy (Romans 9:16).


I'm... not sure what connection you see between a branch being cut off and tempting God, but no matter... I "claimed" ~ as Paul says explicitly ~ that... well, I'll pull his words verbatim: "...even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again" (Romans 11:23).


Well thank you for saying exactly what I just said... :) Un-natural branches, once grafted in, will continue in faith and obedience because this is the will of God, and, as Paul says in Philippians 2, it is God who works in us as believers, so that we then both will and work for his good pleasure, which, again, is echoing Ezekiel's quote of God above, that God, in His invincible working of salvation in a person, puts His Spirit within that person and causes that person to walk in His statutes and to be careful to obey His rules (see above).


Good question. The short answer to that is that as children of their father the Devil, they really seek not God's will because they do not love Him. Unbelievers actually seek to do the Devil's will, because he is their father, and they remain slaves of unrighteousness. Remember what Jesus says to the Jews to whom He is speaking in John 8:43-44? He says, "...you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires..."

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

"Behold, 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."

Are you saying this is wrong? That Jesus just walks in a few doors and that is called salvation? The majority of humanity are never even given the opportunity?

I posted the sheep referenced in Matthew 25 have no choice, and you replied back that no one has a choice.

God wills that all be saved. So you have it backwards. You seem to imply no one can reject salvation or that would destroy God's Sovereign will. Otherwise It is God's will that the majority of humanity dies and is forever damned. God let humans suffer long enough to get His ten percent, He actually decided to be saved.

I take it no lost person can be saved in your opinion, and no saved person can ever be lost?

 

[PinSeeker]

Your interpretations of God's Word match up with Calvinism. And you know that's what I mean, so why act otherwise?

I'm not; they do; yes, I'm an unapologetic five-point Calvinist. :) But hey, by the same token, your interpretations "match up with" Arminianism.

What are you basing that opinion on?

The words of Stephen himself, and those he's speaking in the same context as, which are those of Isaiah, as I said.

Did you miss in Romans 1:18-24 where it says they don't have any excuse for rebelling against God, not honoring Him, not being thankful to Him and suppressing the truth?

Well, since I cited that passage, no, I obviously didn't miss it. :)

Your doctrine gives them an excuse for being that way because your doctrine says they are naturally that way.

Not the case at all. But it is the natural human condition ~ again, because of the Fall, and Adam's bequeathing of this death in sin to all his progeny, which is all of mankind~ and what can be known about God, as Paul says, has been clearly seen by all. The impact of this is that, despite it being their natural condition, they have no excuse for not acknowledging Who He is and worshiping Him (instead of created things) as they ought. No one has any excuse for not doing that, and that is Paul's very point.

But, Paul said they darken their own hearts and BECOME futile in their thinking.

Yes, but it's also true that God has mercy on whom He will, and hardens those whom He will, which this same Paul says in Romans 9:18... so how do you reconcile that with Romans 1:21, which you cite here? You kind of have to...

There is nothing that says they couldn't help but rebel against God while suppressing the truth and exchanging the truth for a lie. The scripture says that they knew better, but they stubbornly refuse to submit to God even after He calls them to repentance. They choose to do that by their own free wills.

Sure, but here in what you say, the key word is 'calls.' There is a general call of the Gospel, that goes out to all people ~ as in, "Here is what all people should do... Everyone is welcome/eligible... " ~ and this can certainly be resisted. But there is also an inward call, issued by God via His Holy Spirit, and this call is 100% effective. Here we can cite Paul yet again, this time in Romans 8:29-30...

"...those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called he also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."​

This group of people that He calls is a limited group, not all people. He obviously did not foreknow, predestine, call, justify and ultimately glorify all people. So this is a call of a very different nature than the general call that goes out to all to repent and believe in Christ. The immediate point I'm making is that the people who receive this call from God inevitably are justified and ultimately glorified. Now... who is that group? Well, Paul tells us in Romans 9... :)

Now, my citing the above... I think I know, being the Arminian you are, what you're going to pick up on from Romans 8:29-30 above at some point and go to next, here, but, well, I'll just wait and see... maybe not... :)

That does not have the same context as unbelievers resisting the Holy Spirit.

People resist the Holy Spirit in all kinds of ways, Unbelievers reject the general outward call of the Gospel all the time, many times even in a hostile manner. Believers do, too, unfortunately, they do not live, to some extent anyway, as is becoming of a Christian, a follower of Christ (and this is what both Isaiah and Paul are talking about, as I have said). But God's salvific call is very different; again, if God extends His inward salvific call to any one person, that one person will inevitably be saved and therefore justified, sanctified (which is an ongoing process through our lives), and ultimately glorified. This one point actually covers two of John Calvin's clarifications regarding two of Jacobus Arminius's "points" (yes, there are not really "five points" that John Calvin made; Jacobus Arminius originally made the "five points," and Calvin just refuted them. Ever hear of the Synod of Dort?

The concept of the outward vs. the inward call is very similar to the concept of baptism. I assume you have been baptized in a church building (so have I), but this outward baptism, while important as an outward sign, a sacrament, is not the one effectual to salvation. Listen to what John the Baptist says (comments in parentheses mine):

"I baptize you with water for repentance..." (this is outward baptism, which is not effectual, but very important as an outward sign, a sacrament, given to us for our benefit) "...but He Who is coming after me is mightier than I, Whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (this is the inward, effectual baptism, which is given to us in the act of salvation itself within us, which is an act of God Himself).​

In that context, they are resisting the Holy Spirit's call for them to humble themselves and repent of their sins.

Sure, the general outward call of the Gospel, which is what I said.

You have offered no evidence at all that those unbelievers resisting the Holy Spirit is not a case of them resisting His call for them to repent and believe so that they would be saved.

The Holy Spirit's inward call to salvation is very different than the general, outward call of the Gospel.

Calvinism always only looks at part of the picture instead of the big picture.

I say that's Arminianism's issue, ironically.

Part of God's purpose, because of His love for all people and desire for all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) is to offer salvation to all people and no one can thwart that.

I agree. But Job says, in no uncertain terms, that nothing can thwart God's purposes. I would agree with you in the sense that if God purposes to set His sovereign, distinguishing love on someone ~ as he does with His elect ~ then yes, no one can thwart that purpose of love... that salvific love. But he does not give that love to those not among His elect. This does not mean He doesn't love them at all, Spiritual Israelite, but that He doesn't love them in the specific way He loves His elect. He has mercy on some as He wills, and He hardens others, also as He wills. And now we're talking about the difference between God's common grace ~ common in that in this life, He gives great measures of grace to all, whether they realize it or acknowledge it or not ~ and God's particular, saving grace, which He gives only to His elect. The latter receive God's inward call, issued by the Holy Spirit.

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

Yes, common grace (see above) and the general offer/call of salvation (as opposed to the inward call by His Spirit; see above).

When someone is born again/saved they enter the kingdom of God.

Hmm, interesting statement. I agree. But you think people can resist being born again... But this being born again happens even when the person is dead ~ dead ~ in his/her sin. My question is, how can anyone resist being born again if he or she is dead? And for that matter, how can anyone choose anything if he or she is dead? As Jesus said, "With man, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

Continued from above...

But, scripture says people must repent and have faith in order to be born again/saved. The repentance and faith comes first.

I agree, but I would switch the order. Faith, which is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), comes first, and then our repentance inevitably follows; Paul says it's God's kindness, His grace, that leads us to repentance. And this leading us to repentance is ongoing; our lives as Christians are to be lives of repentance, because we still sin. But we want to repent ~ to turn from our sin and to God (we are no longer slaves to sin and unrighteousness but now slaves to righteousness) where we saw no need before. And again, faith is the gift of God. Once we have been given this new spirit, even the Holy Spirit, then we walk in His statutes and are careful to obey His rules, and good works and the fruit of the Spirit are the result.
,

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Right, when, we believed, not because we believed. :) Ephesians 1 is so great... Hey, what you quote here is just after Paul has said, "(God) chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will... In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..." Surely you would not say that our will determines His, or that we somehow dictate His purposes...

No, I'm not.

Yes you are (speaking of something different than God's salvific act, or actually being one of God's elect), you just don't realize it... or you just don't want to consider that possibility.

This is not talking about God creating people to either be "vessels for honorable use" or "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" from birth as you probably imagine. In Romans 9, Paul uses Pharaoah as an example of what he's talking about.

Romans 9:17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

He created Pharoah ~ as He does everyone ~ knits them together in their mother's womb, as David puts it in Psalm 139. And we are all created in the image of God, right? And, God has a purpose for everyone, right? Was Pharoah created when he was... oh, I'm estimating here, I guess... 40-ish? Well, no, that's ridiculous. But it is possible for God to "raise someone up" for a specific purpose at any time in their lives...

Is this talking about what God planned to do with that person that we know as Pharoah from birth?

Well, SI, David does say, to God, "...in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them..."

No! Pharoah first chose to harden his own heart before God ever did. Pharaoh hardening his own heart is what made God choose him to be a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction.

Ah, so our wills determine His. No... And again, God has mercy on whom he wills, and He hardens those whom He wills...

Why are you so willing to interpet this passage in such a way that contradicts many other passages?

This is your opinion. I think the positions you've made clear you hold contradict many passages of Scripture... and you even contradict some of the things you say in saying other things. And I'm perfectly okay with you calling that my opinion. :)

Why are you letting those people off the hook?

Oh, my...

Stephen was mad at them for resisting the Holy Spirit. You just brush it off and act as if they were just doing what came naturally and weren't able to do anything else. Why did Stephen get upset with them if they were supposedly not capable of doing anything but resisting the Holy Spirit?

I'm brushing nothing off. The natural human condition is a matter of great, great gravity. And as I have said, people are able to do all kinds of things, capable, woodenly speaking of doing a lot of things. I never said anything even remotely to the effect of "not (being) capable of doing anything but resisting the Holy Spirit."

Okay, that's enough for now... Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Hm, well, because God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), He "does not wish that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). But because God desires or wishes (or doesn't wish, in this case) something does not dictate His action. As Paul says in Romans 1, although all know God, some will not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, and will become futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts will be darkened.

OK, what translation uses "wish" as an ability of God?

wish: feel or express a strong desire or hope for something that is not easily attainable; want something that cannot or probably will not happen.

Really? The creator of the universe hopes in something that cannot or probably won't happen? The one you say can do anything He pleases, cannot save all mankind, but only wishes it will happen?

You do realize that from God's perspective the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth and no human was created or born at that point. God elected all to be saved, because God could and did redeem all of mankind. God was no respecter of any future human. God knew all would need redemption, and all those who needed redemption were included. No one was left out. God also granted that any one could reject God, and God reserved the right to withdraw His Atonement at any time, and blot any person out. Not that He was willing to blot them out, or limited redemption to a certain few.

You cannot have God at contradictory wills. You will have to find a verse that God was willing to save a limited amount of humans, and willing to destroy all the rest.

God did not make any natural born sinners. God set up creation to produce sinners naturally. God gave Adam and Eve a corruptible body that would never inherit eternal life and took away His permanent incorruptible physical body. Thus the means of being born into sin was through a natural process, and not God condemning each and every human at the moment of conception.

On the plus side God placed His Holy Spirit into every mind/soul at conception and was at work calling every one to Himself. This is symbolized in Revelation 3 as Jesus knocking on every door.

Romans 1 is about a human getting to a place where God removes any opportunity at redemption. Paul calls that point reprobation. One should not confuse God giving them up to that state, as one's blanket condition at conception. "God gave them up" is pointed out several times in the chapter. This implies that before that point, God was willing to remove their sin, via the second birth. Then God changed His will, and gave them over to a reprobate mind, at which point they could never have any desire to be saved.

This condition has to happen or there would not be any demonic activity in creation. That is the point where one's spirit is also handed over to evil, and is no longer blameless and pure. But no human is born in such a reprobate state. Jesus calling them the children of Satan is a figure of speech just like one becomes a child of God. A person is not naturally born of God nor of Satan. Those to whom are of Satan at that point, already had a reprobate mind making them a child of perdition, similar to becoming a restored son of God. No one is born a son of God in God's image, but a son of Adam in Adam's dead corruptible image. Adam was a son of God, but that title was removed from Adam and given to Jesus Christ. You all are missing so much from 1 Corinthians 15. Also Genesis 5:1-3

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:"

Adam aged 100 years at least in a dead corruptible body that was no longer in the image of God. Then Seth was born in Adam's image, not God's image. Nor Satan's image. So saying that we can choose God or not choose is somehow thwarting God's will is pure ridiculousness. God planned it all out before Creation, that we would have a free will choice each and every one. Some would choose sin so much that God would give them over to sin so they were not at odds within their own mind. Some would choose the second birth. The majority would never decide either way, but still condemned to stand as the dead at the GWT Judgment. Certainly God did not dictate one's outcome. That would go against God's own will. God can change His mind, God cannot be doubled minded. That would make God unstable, the same way it makes many humans unstable. But even unstable people can get to a place where they are either reprobate, or totally submitted to God.

If you don't think God changes His mind, He set up 2 Covenants which many agree are totally different from each other, but God never used both at the same time in dealing with humanity. So in the OT His mind was fixed on one Covenant, and after the Cross on the New Covenant. Or one could say the OT was completed in the NT. God changed His mind and perspective is the point. God always knew how He would work, so nothing caught God by surprise. And God knows how it will end. And if you think you know how it ends, remember that God has not told us everything.

 

[Timtofly]

.because Paul is very clear that faith is the gift of God... "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." Faith is defined by the writer of Hebrews ~ and ultimately God

Is grace the gift or faith? Since faith is not tangible, obedience is the tangible part. You know that 4 letter word, "work"? Faith is only obtained by working out in obedience God's grace. God gives you grace as you work out that grace, and after you are gone, it is called faith. If you do nothing, you certainly will not be remembered, nor have faith.

Grace is the currency. Work is putting usage to the currency. Faith is just credit. Credit is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Once grace is finished, then you can see the faith. No one can see credit, but it sure is a lot of work, the more credit you are indebted with.

Even James said faith without works is dead. But all are dead without God's grace given to them.

 

[PinSeeker]

OK, what translation uses "wish" as an ability of God?

LOL! Well, God is God, and He can do anything, because He is God... :) But no translation ever insinuates in any way that God sometimes wishes but does not get. :)

Surely you can understand wishing in at least a couple of very different contexts. The English Standard Version (ESV), which is a very literal translation, says, in 2 Peter 3:9, "not wishing that any should perish." The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is interesting; it originally came out in 1995 and used "not wishing" there, but a revision came out in 2020 that uses "not willing" in the same place. Most other translations use "not willing that any should perish" or "not wanting anyone to perish", but all are the same; whatever the wording/version, it is to be understood in the sense that His desire ~ which is different than His will ~ is that no one would/should perish. Not only would that be absolutely consistent with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:4 (God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"), but to understand "not willing" in any version where that wording is used in the sense that God, conversely speaking, wills that no one perish is to then advocate that everyone will be saved, which is what we know as universalism, which we know not to be the case.

You cannot have God at contradictory wills.

Right. And you're doing that. :) Inadvertently, apparently, but yeah. :)

God did not make any natural born sinners.

Well, since Adam's fall, He creates all human beings who, because of Adam's original sin, inherit his condition ~ not his particular sin, but the effect on him that it had, as we are all his progeny ~ that he acquired and therefore in need of redemption. His acquisition then, and ours from birth, is this sinful nature, this deadness in sin. But God promised in Genesis 3:15 ~ for the first time, because this promise permeates the whole Bible ~ "right the ship," to restore all of His creation its original "very good" state, to make all things new, which we see that He will do in Revelation 21, particularly verse 5.

God set up creation to produce sinners naturally.

No, creation was originally in a non-sinful state, but Adam... messed that up. And now God promises to restore all of His creation to that original state, and He will. See above.

God gave Adam and Eve a corruptible body that would never inherit eternal life and took away His permanent incorruptible physical body.

LOL! They were not given new physical bodies, but the image of God in them was corrupted. Conversely but likewise, we did not receive new physical bodies either when were born again, or when our bodies are resurrected at the end of the age, when our spirit will be reunited with our reconstituted bodies, but made new in the sense that they will no longer be corrupted... tainted with sin.

Thus the means of being born into sin was through a natural process, and not God condemning each and every human at the moment of conception.

God placed His Holy Spirit into every mind/soul at conception and was at work calling every one to Himself.

No... See above. He gives His Holy Spirit to His elect only.

This is symbolized in Revelation 3 as Jesus knocking on every door.

Well, everyone is eligible, sure. :) This is the general call of the Gospel of Christ. But only His elect will be called inwardly by God via His Holy Spirit and thus born again.

Okay, the rest... :)

If you don't think God changes His mind, He set up 2 Covenants which many agree are totally different from each other,

Ah. Not so much, Timtofly. The first (which is actually in several, cumulative interations ~ with Adam, and then Noah [Life]... then Abraham (Land, Offspring)... then Moses (Law)... then David (a King) ~ is a shadow of the second (which is the one perfect iteration of all the shadows ~ Jesus, in Whom all the promises of God have their 'yes' and 'amen'). This is the basic difference between what we call Covenant Theology (which is the correct systematic understanding of the Bible, God Himself, and Jesus Himself) and what we call Dispensationalism (which divides history into various “dispensations” which reflect God’s ordering of his redemptive plan).

Basically, Dispensationalism posits that God made a Plan A, and that didn't work, so He then made a Plan B, and that didn't work either, so he made a Plan C, and that didn't work either... The number of Plans varies among people who "understand" Scripture in this dispensational way; four, five, seven...

There was never any need for a Plan B or any thereafter. The only One Who keeps every promise He has ever made to us is our covenant God: El Berith. Our God is a covenant-keeping God. He always keeps His promises. God’s promises are forever.

God changed His mind and perspective is the point.

Yes, I know that's your point. :) See above.

...nothing caught God by surprise.

This I agree with. :)

Is grace the gift or faith?

Yes. :)

Since faith is not tangible, obedience is the tangible part.

Right, and the tangible is the direct result of the intangible.

Faith is only obtained by working out in obedience God's grace.

This is backwards. But you are definitely not alone in thinking this. :) As God said in Ezekiel 36:27, "I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." And Paul says in Ephesians 2:, we "have been saved through faith. And this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

God gives you grace as you work out that grace, and after you are gone, it is called faith.

Faith ~ "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) ~ is a very present reality in Christians. Yes, we are to work out our salvation, but... well as Paul says to the Philippians (which he says in different ways in all his letters)... having been born again of the Spirit, we are to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in (us, by His Holy Spirit), both (so that we) will and (so that we) work for his good pleasure."

Grace is the currency. Work is putting usage to the currency. Faith is just credit. Credit is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Once grace is finished, then you can see the faith. No one can see credit, but it sure is a lot of work, the more credit you are indebted with.

Whaaa...? LOL! Goodness gracious.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[PinSeeker]

You continue to misinterpret scripture after scripture.

<chuckles> Well, we all think that about each other, right? That's kind of the genesis of debate... LOL!

Look at the context of that verse instead of making assumptions about it based on doctrinal bias.

Well, right back atcha, SI. I avoid such... incendiary... rhetoric.

The context is established in the previous verses.

Agree... :) Seems we're sort of talking past each other here, at least in this case.

Did you read what I said...

Yes. :)

and immediately forget what I said?

No. :) Neither immediately nor un-immediately. :)

I said "But, when someone stubbornly refuses to do something it means they are capable of doing it, but are being willfully rebellious and choosing not to do it.".

Yes, and I agreed. But we were... or at least I was, in response to what you had said earlier... just talking about being capable of... stuff.

If someone stubbornly refuses to do something that they are capable of doing that means they could have chosen to do that thing instead. That is not what you believe!

I would surely hope any human being believes that...

You do not believe that the ones Stephen railed against for resisting the Holy Spirit could have chosen to not resist the Holy Spirit instead.

Ohhhh... yes I do... But here we get back to the issue, really, and that's what Stephen meant by "resisting the Holy Spirit." Which I spoke to in my first response to you're bring Acts 7 and this little episode into this discussion.

As for Psalm 51:5, all that means...

Uh oh. I mean, I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here, SI, but when someone points to something in Scripture and says "all that means," that's kind of a red flag... :) However, here... well, read on:

...is that everyone will eventually sin.

Yes, I agree, but there's more to it than that. :) Why will we eventually sin, SI, even from our conception? That's rhetorical, actually... :) Yes, we all will eventually sin ~ we are all prone to sin (as the hymn-writer says in Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing), and there is no minimum age for this proneness to sin ~ because of our sinful nature (which we have at birth... everyone's nature is what it is from birth), from God's perspective ~ because He is outside of time... He is always present at all times, because even time is a part of His creation... He is the great I AM ~ we have already sinned, already broken not just part but all of His Law... and thus, we are in need of redemption even from birth, even from conception, as David says.

We are all born with the tendency to sin and, once old enough to actually sin, we will do so. But, babies do not sin.

See above. It's about the state of the heart SI, which is what it is from birth, even from conception.

...that verse proves nothing one way or another in this particular discussion.

You're welcome to your opinion...

If Psalm 51:5 implied that people are totally depraved even from birth, as I feel certain that you believe (correct me if I'm wrong, though), then why did Jesus say this:

Matthew 18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Ah, this little child... Well Jesus called him, so certainly the child was old enough to hear Him and come to Him on his own, so obviously, he was at least a couple of years old. Do you think the little child was sinless? Had never sinned? If you do... well, I would disagree. Even so, it's not about whether one has actually sinned, but the inclination of his/heart toward sin, his/her nature. But in answer to your question, the Lord was certainly not insinuating children were or are sinless, are without sin. "Become as little children..." Have you ever spoken to anyone of, or had anyone speak to you about, a child-like faith?

So, clearly, Jesus did not agree with the belief that people are born totally depraved as He clearly indicated that little children are not totally depraved.

Oh, I think He knew very well ~ especially being 100% man and 100% God at the same time, and in His humanity tempted in every way as we are yet in His Godliness able to perfectly resist sin and remain sinless ~ the nature of man and his proneness to sin from birth. Before and after His life on earth... :)

I believe you are not being honest here.

I... don't care. :) Think what you will. I can't control that, nor would I even attempt to do so. :)

Yes, people need God's help to see the truth...

Well, they need God to remove their blindness, to open the eyes of their heart. Same with their stopped ears, their lame legs, and their muteness of tongue, spiritually speaking. They need to be made alive and raised to newness of life. Thanks be to God, He has done this for you and for me.

but after that it becomes man's choice to accept it or reject it...

Well, right, but then ~ the ones who have been born again and thus given a new spirit, a new, godly nature, no longer of their father the devil and a slave to unrighteousness but now of their Father God and a slave to righteousness... in Christ ~ being able to see, they will not fail to choose the Right, because, not only will they then see the Right, and know the Right is right, and thus be wholly inclined toward the Right, but they will see the wrong for what it is, and know the wrong is wrong, and be wholly inclined against it.

Calvinism has no answer for that.

LOL! Oh... see above... :) Maybe just answers that you, as an Arminian, don't like... :)

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[PinSeeker]

And, once again, you are misinterpreting scripture.

And, once again, back atcha...

You are bringing your Calvinist bias into the scripture...

Well, okay, but you your Arminian bias... This back and forth thing is not good, I think... :)

instead of interpreting it objectively. What was Jesus saying that they didn't believe? That He was the Christ, right? And why didn't they believe that?

Well, as I said before, Jesus answered that Himself: "...you do not believe because you are not among my sheep" (John 10:26).

To fit your narrative ~ or, rather, for your current thinking to be correct ~ He would have had to have replied, "you are not among My sheep because you do not believe." But that's not what He said at all.

The cause and the effect are unmistakable. The fact that they are not among His sheep ~ given to Him by the Father ~ is the reason they did not believe.

No. They already didn't believe in what was taught about the Messiah in the Old Testament, so they naturally would not believe that Jesus was the Christ since He did not fit their understanding of who the Christ should be.

John 10:7 Therefore Jesus said again, “Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep. 8 All who have come before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep have not listened to them

Notice here that the ones He was calling His sheep were already His sheep even before He came. How could that be? Because they had the proper understanding of who the Christ would be. Because of that they easily recognized Jesus as the Messiah they were waiting for.

So, what Jesus was saying in John 10:26 is not that they couldn't believe He was the Christ because they weren't chosen to be among His sheep...

See above.

...they did not believe He was the Christ because they were not among the sheep who had the correct understanding of who the Christ would be.

Such false justification/rationalization. No offense, but this is an egregious mangling of Jesus's very words.

You are misinterpreting this passage in a similar way.

And I say you're avoiding it. Whether that's inadvertent or purposeful, I don't know, but no matter.

What you are not addressing here is how did they become children of the devil in the first place?

I've addressed this in detail. You remember what I said about Adam, right? No need to re-type; see above.

Because they were born that way?

Yes. They were born in sin, Just like David. Which you don't like, I understand, but it is what it is. Let me offer this:

In Genesis 2:16-17, God warned Adam, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Aside: who later told Eve, presumably, because Eve reiterated this warning to the serpent in the Garden ("...the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’" Genesis 3:2-3), so she somehow came to know what God had said to Adam, and since Adam was her husband and the only other person alive... :)​

The question is, when Adam did eat of the forbidden tree in Genesis 3, did he die in that day, as God told him he would? Or was it just an empty threat and therefore a lie, and he didn't actually die?

Ah, well, that's another rhetorical question... :) Yes, they died. And this means ~ in some way... :) ~ that all men are born in this dead state, dead in their sin

Aside from that, both Adam and Eve received a judgment from God and were sentenced to some pretty hard things for the duration of their earthly lives, and since Eve is the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), that judgment unmistakably applies to all their progeny, which is all of mankind. Thus, Paul says in Romans 5 that "one trespass (Adam's, of course) led to condemnation for all men."

I've already addressed this. People are not born totally depraved...

Right, you have, but they are... Totally depraved, meaning totally prone to sin... dead in sin. See above.

They are not born as children of the devil.

Hmm, so the people Jesus was talking to were born of God, and thus not in need of being born again, which would refute what Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3... No... :)

...people become that way by choice...

In a way this is correct; Adam did have a choice, and he made it wrongly. And as the father of all of the human race, they did make that choice, in him... his unrighteous choice was imputed to all who came after him. And this was originally true of believers, too, even you and I. Adam became dead in his sin (as did Eve), and we are all born in that state. Just as David was, as he acknowledged in Psalm 51:5... and again, there is no minimum age on this; Genesis 6:5 is the first place we see explicitly that "the wickedness of (unconverted) man was (and we can say 'is') great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was (is) only evil continually." But we... :) As believers, we have been born again of the Spirit, and thus are in Christ... :)

I can't even believe you are being serious here.

I'm aware of that.

Since when does God not act on His desires?

When it compromises His hatred of sin and His perfect justice.

He always does.

You know, I agree, really; often, inaction is purposely done. So yes, He always acts on His desires... somehow. :)

Whoa, wait a minute here. What do you mean "God could have done this for all men"? Done what?

Could have saved everyone. But He does not. He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills. And to refer to Romans 1 again just to make the same point above, He gives some up to their foolish desires, which denotes a purposeful inaction, and even a refraining from satisfying His own desire.

Calvinism gives them an excuse by saying they were born totally depraved and can't help but be that way.

But they can help it, which any good Calvinist would say. They have seen what can be known about God, because it is clearly evident to everyone. They have brains; they could have chosen otherwise, but, as Paul says, have exchanged the truth for a lie... and therefore have no excuse...

Another misinterpretation. It is salvation that is the gift of God, not faith. Salvation equate to eternal life.

It's the whole thing, Spiritual Israelite. "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God..." You can't separate faith from that and make it of our own manufacture. And on top of that, as I said before, this "faith" is defined as an assurance (of things hoped for) and a conviction (of things not seen). Both this assurance and the conviction is from an objective, outside source, and that Source is God Himself.

...faith is not a work...

AH!! Totally agree. However, you are ~ inadvertently ~ making it out to be just that. And you are ~ again, inadvertently ~ making the grace of God out to be not really grace at all (see Romans 11:6).

...works are a natural result of true faith...

Absolutely. Agree.

...faith is not a work.

Agreed. However... :) ...you are ~ inadvertently ~ making it out to be just that.

The thief on the cross did not do any works, but he had faith and was saved as a result.

Well, we don't actually know that. He may have been already converted. We don't know anything else about the thief crucified on Jesus's right, do we? ALTHOUGH.... :)

It is very significant that this man was crucified on Jesus's right (and that the other was crucified on Jesus's left). Matthew 25:31-46, anyone? :) So that's the scene of the final Judgment, and all those on Jesus's right will be told, "Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave Me food, I was thirsty and you gave Me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed Me, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me, I was in prison and you came to Me... Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." So, did the thief crucified on Jesus's right not do any works? Because in Matthew 25, He's not making any exceptions among those on His right in the Judgment with regard to "doing it to Him"... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

In a way this is correct; Adam did have a choice, and he made it wrongly. And as the father of all of the human race, they did make that choice, in him... his unrighteous choice was imputed to all who came after him.

There is also the example of Peter. Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him, which happened just a few hours in the future. Peter’s will was not to deny as he expressed in Matthew 26:35.

Now if Peter had the free will to choose not to deny Christ after being told he would, then Jesus tempted or tested God by allowing the possibility of His word to be untrue. If Jesus knew the future and that Peter would only remember after the cock crew then Peter didn’t have the free will to prevent the denial, meaning no amount of will power on Peter’s part could’ve prevented the denial.

 

[PinSeeker]

There is also the example of Peter. Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him, which happened just a few hours in the future. Peter’s will was not to deny as he expressed in Matthew 26:35.

Now if Peter had the free will to choose not to deny Christ after being told he would, then Jesus tempted or tested God by allowing the possibility of His word to be untrue. If Jesus knew the future and that Peter would only remember after the cock crew then Peter didn’t have the free will to prevent the denial, meaning no amount of will power on Peter’s part could’ve prevented the denial.

Hmmmm, well I would say he did have the free will (woodenly speaking) not to deny Christ ~ certainly he chose of his own free will and accord to do what he did ~ but because of his sinful nature, the condition of his heart, he was compelled to, and thus chose to, do otherwise. The heart always drives the will...

Grace and peace to you, GB.

 

[grafted branch]

Hmmmm, well I would say he did have the free will (woodenly speaking) not to deny Christ ~ certainly he chose of his own free will and accord to do what he did ~ but because of his sinful nature, the condition of his heart, he was compelled to, and thus chose to, do otherwise. The heart always drives the will...

Grace and peace to you, GB.

So then did Jesus tempt God? Did Jesus take a chance that His words might be untrue?

 

[Davy]

ANY idea that Lord Jesus Christ was weak in Spirit or had fallen into sin, is a LIE by those of the "synagogue of Satan" that had Him crucified. That lie is an attempt by false Jews to prove that Jesus Christ was not GOD with us on earth in the flesh.

Emmanuel = another name for Jesus Christ given in Matthew 1, and it means 'with us is God'. That name taken from the Isaiah prophecy about one born of a virgin. This means Jesus was fully God while on earth; tested by... sin, yet overcame all sin, and was completely without sin. Only God could do that while in a flesh body.


And when Jesus said on His cross, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?", He was quoting directly from the Psalms 22 prophecy about His crucifixion given through David.

And I thought the scribes and Pharisees knew Old Testament Bible Scripture, so why didn't they recognize Jesus' quoting that from Psalms 22? That Psalms 22 Scripture even mentioned about those who would cast lots on Jesus' clothing!

Thus Lord Jesus was still TEACHING when He said that, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" on His cross. He was declaring the crucifixion prophecy then being fulfilled before their eyes!

But what do uneducated preachers that don't study their Bible say, something like, "Oh Jesus was in a fit of passion and afraid of death and all the pain He was suffering, so that's why He said that, having a moment of weakness." NO, that is not why Jesus said that on His cross. He was teaching and declaring the Psalms 22 prophecy.

 

[PinSeeker]

So then did Jesus tempt God? Did Jesus take a chance that His words might be untrue?

No and no; Jesus is God, and Jesus knew what Peter was going to do...

Let me offer this, GB; surely you will see the parallel...

The Bible was written over many years, even centuries, different parts of it written by several different people, repectively. We refer to it as God's Word, because it is, of course. However, the writers of the Bible did in fact write in their own words... except where they quote God, or Jesus, or others, where they record the words of others. But still... Well, the ~ rhetorical, really ~ question is, "When we read the Bible, are we reading God's words, or are we reading man's words?" The answer to that question is, "Yes." :) I guess I can understand how folks can consider that contradictory, or a paradox of sorts, but it is neither.

So, I'll help, here. To what we're talking about here. So the question is, "Did Jesus, as God, know the future, or did Peter have free will to deny Christ or prevent his denial of Christ?" And the answer is, "Yes." :) Likewise, with regard to the above, I can understand how folks can consider that contradictory, or a paradox of sorts, but it is neither.

I think the way you are looking at or thinking about this is at least a bit hyper-Calvinistic. There is such a thing as hyper-Calvinism, which is a distortion of true Calvinism, which says, basically, "If God wants something to happen, He'll just magically make it happen without us having to do anything," or... something... :) ...like that.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

No and no; Jesus is God, and Jesus knew what Peter was going to do...

Let me offer this, GB; surely you will see the parallel...

The Bible was written over many years, even centuries, different parts of it written by several different people, repectively. We refer to it as God's Word, because it is, of course. However, the writers of the Bible did in fact write in their own words... except where they quote God, or Jesus, or others, where they record the words of others. But still... Well, the ~ rhetorical, really ~ question is, "When we read the Bible, are we reading God's words, or are we reading man's words?" The answer to that question is, "Yes." :) I guess I can understand how folks can consider that contradictory, or a paradox of sorts, but it is neither.

So, I'll help, here. To what we're talking about here. So the question is, "Did Jesus, as God, know the future, or did Peter have free will to deny Christ or prevent his denial of Christ?" And the answer is, "Yes." :) Likewise, with regard to the above, I can understand how folks can consider that contradictory, or a paradox of sorts, but it is neither.

I think the way you are looking at or thinking about this is at least a bit hyper-Calvinistic. There is such a thing as hyper-Calvinism, which is a distortion of true Calvinism, which says, basically, "If God wants something to happen, He'll just magically make it happen without us having to do anything," or... something... :) ...like that.

Grace and peace to you.

Ok, I’m not trying to push hyper-Calvinism but this one specific example of Peter having the foreknowledge that he will do something he doesn’t want to do is an interesting situation.

When you say Jesus knew the future I think everyone would agree, no debate about that. When you say that Peter also had the free will to prevent the denial that’s where it seems to contradict the idea of what people typically call free will.

For example if I were to tell you that in the next hour you are going to make a post on this forum that you don’t know Jesus. Obviously you could use your free will to simply go get a burger or something and then come back after the hour has passed and make a post stating I’m incorrect.

On the other hand if Jesus Himself said in the next hour you are going to make a post on this forum that you don’t know Jesus, well that’s a different story. If you did go get your burger and not make that post then Jesus was a false prophet, he prophesied something that didn’t come to pass.

We all know it’s impossible for Jesus to be a false prophet. So if Jesus told you you’re going to make that post, there’s now way you could avoid making that post, you wouldn’t have to free will to go get your burger and skip making the post.

I don’t know what kind of definition of free will exists that would allow for the inability to freely reject doing a task when told you will do that task.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not the case at all. But it is the natural human condition ~ again, because of the Fall, and Adam's bequeathing of this death in sin to all his progeny, which is all of mankind~ and what can be known about God, as Paul says, has been clearly seen by all. The impact of this is that, despite it being their natural condition, they have no excuse for not acknowledging Who He is and worshiping Him (instead of created things) as they ought. No one has any excuse for not doing that, and that is Paul's very point.

Does anyone who acknowledges who God is and worships Him end up in hell? No, right? So, these people we're talking about who have no excuse for not acknowledging who God is for not worshiping Him end up in hell if they never repent of their sins, right? So, since they had no excuse for not acknowledging God and worshiping Him, what other reason do they end up in hell except that it's because they made the wrong choice in whether to acknowledge and worship God or not? You can't say that they just naturally won't acknowledge God and worship Him and are naturally unable to do so. That would be a legitimate excuse for not doing so. But, the scripture says they have no excuse. How can you possibly reconcile all this with what Calvinism teaches? I don't believe you can.

Yes, but it's also true that God has mercy on whom He will, and hardens those whom He will, which this same Paul says in Romans 9:18... so how do you reconcile that with Romans 1:21, which you cite here? You kind of have to...

Very easily. Does God just randomly have mercy on some and randomly harden others? No! God hardened Pharaoh's heart because Pharoah had already hardened his own heart. It's not as if God just randomly decided that Pharaoah would have a hardened heart with no consideration of who Pharaoh had already decided to be (an evil dictator).

Also, while it is certainly true that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy on and hardens whoever He wants without anyone being able to tell Him what to do, it just so happens that God wants to have mercy on all people even though He is not obligated to desire that.

Romans 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

You should not interpret a verse like Romans 9:18 and draw conclusions from it without taking other scripture like Romans 11:30-32 into account. This passage indicates that God wants to have mercy on all people, which lines up with other scripture which teaches that God wants all people to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9) and all people to be saved (1 John 2:1-2, 1 Timothy 2:3-6). So, since scripture clearly teaches that God wants all people to repent and to have mercy on all people and for all people to be saved, why don't all people repent and why doesn't God have mercy on and save all people? Would that be a reflection of weakness or a lack of sovereignty on God's part, as Calvinists imagine would be the case in this scenario? No, not at all. God sovereignly chose to make all people responsible. This gives no excuse for anyone to not repent and have faith.

The reason then that some don't repent and some don't receive mercy and salvation is because of their own free will choice that they had no excuse for making. What other explanation for God's wrath and punishment can there be except for people making the wrong choice as it relates to what God expects people to do, which is to humble themselves, repent and put their trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? If some people are not even capable of repenting and having faith because of repentance and faith supposedly being things that only occur if God gives them to you, then for what reason would God be angry at those people for not repenting and having faith? There would be none. In Calvinism, God is angry with people and takes His wrath out on people for no good reason. Calvinism misrepresents the character of God.

Sure, but here in what you say, the key word is 'calls.' There is a general call of the Gospel, that goes out to all people ~ as in, "Here is what all people should do... Everyone is welcome/eligible... " ~ and this can certainly be resisted.

If everyone has this so-called "general call of the gospel", which I agree is the case, then it only follows that everyone can potentially respond favorably to it, but Calvinism denies this. Otherwise, what is the point of calling everyone? Surely, God does not disingenuously call anyone to salvation who is not capable of favorably answering the call (accepting the invitation) rather than rejecting it.

But there is also an inward call, issued by God via His Holy Spirit, and this call is 100% effective. Here we can cite Paul yet again, this time in Romans 8:29-30...

"...those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called he also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified."​

This group of people that He calls is a limited group, not all people. He obviously did not foreknow, predestine, call, justify and ultimately glorify all people. So this is a call of a very different nature than the general call that goes out to all to repent and believe in Christ.

Yes, this is a completely different call than the one which represents an invitation to accept God's offer of salvation by way of repenting and putting one's faith in Christ. This "call" is not an invitation that can be accepted or rejected, but rather is a type of call that relates directly to what God is doing which includes justifying and glorifying His people.

The immediate point I'm making is that the people who receive this call from God inevitably are justified and ultimately glorified. Now... who is that group? Well, Paul tells us in Romans 9...

That's a point I agree with, but you need to come back to what you called "the general call of the gospel" and tell me what the reason is that some accept and embrace it and some resist it. Based on Calvinist teachings, I would think you would say that the people who resist it were not chosen by God to accept it (not chosen to repent and believe, not given repentance and faith) and that choice is entirely up to God. But, the problem with that is it would mean some are called/invited to salvation without even having any genuine opportunity of accepting the call/invitation, which makes no sense whatsoever.

People resist the Holy Spirit in all kinds of ways, Unbelievers reject the general outward call of the Gospel all the time, many times even in a hostile manner.

And what is the result if they continue to reject it their entire lives even until their deaths? They are sent to hell, right? So, who is responsible for that? The unbelievers themselves are responsible because they had no excuse for rejecting the call of the gospel just like those who don't acknowledge and worship God have no excuse for that. The kind of people who acknowledge and worship God are the kind of people who respond favorably to the gospel call. The kind of people who don't are the kind of people who reject it. And have no excuse for that. But, Calvinism gives them an excuse.

Calvinism says that they are not really responsible for not repenting and not believing because Calvinism teaches that a person can only repent and believe if God gives the person repentance and faith. So, the excuse that Calvinism gives these people for not repenting and believing is that they were not given repentance and faith which is something they have no control over. That would be a legitimate excuse for their lack of repentance and faith if that was how repentance and faith works, but scripture teaches that they don't have any excuse. And because they don't have any excuse for that, that is why God is angry with them and will take His wrath out on them on judgment day. If they have no ability to repent and believe unless God gives it to them, then there is no reason at all for God to be angry with them and no reason for God to punish them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The concept of the outward vs. the inward call is very similar to the concept of baptism. I assume you have been baptized in a church building (so have I), but this outward baptism, while important as an outward sign, a sacrament, is not the one effectual to salvation. Listen to what John the Baptist says (comments in parentheses mine):

"I baptize you with water for repentance..." (this is outward baptism, which is not effectual, but very important as an outward sign, a sacrament, given to us for our benefit) "...but He Who is coming after me is mightier than I, Whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (this is the inward, effectual baptism, which is given to us in the act of salvation itself within us, which is an act of God Himself).

You make what you call the outward call of the gospel meaningless! You also don't seem willing to acknowledge that it's a call to salvation.

In Matthew 22:1-13 Jesus used an invitation to a wedding as an analogy to the general call of all people to salvation. I'll assume you are familiar with that passage and understand what He was talking about there. He first referred to how the Jews, in general (not all of them, obviously) rejected and killed Him and ended up being punished and destroyed because of it and how their rejection of the invitation resulted in the wedding invitation/gospel call going out to the highways, representing the Gentile nations.

Now, if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it? Is that not what happens to those who reject the call to salvation? If the punishment wasn't for rejecting the call to salvation that they were expected to accept, then what was the reason for the punishment?

I agree. But Job says, in no uncertain terms, that nothing can thwart God's purposes.

Do you see me saying otherwise? No, right? So, why exactly are you telling me this as if I disagreed with you about this?

I would agree with you in the sense that if God purposes to set His sovereign, distinguing love on someone ~ as he does with His elect ~ then yes, no one can thwart that purpose of love... that salvific love. But he does not give that love to those not among His elect.

And why not? What reason can you give for God setting "His sovereign, distinguing love" on some, but not on the rest? In my view that's an easy question to answer, but I'm not sure how you can answer that question while at the same time not contradicting the character of God.

And not only do you believe God doesn't "set His sovereign, distinguing love" on some people, but you also believe He punishes those people for eternity. For what reason does He punish those people if they only way they could have been saved is if He chose to save them since they supposedly have no choice in the matter?

This does not mean He doesn't love them at all, Spiritual Israelite, but that He doesn't love them in the specific way He loves His elect.

You are trying to tell me that He loves people that He sends to hell with no opportunity to be saved (according to your doctrine)? Really? You expect me to believe that? No way. That's complete nonsense. That would be quite a ridiculous way to show His love for those non-elect people. I'm pretty sure that they could not be convinced that He loves them in any way, shape or form if He sends them to hell with no opportunity at all to go to heaven instead.

But you think people can resist being born again...

Right. They can resist the call to be born again/saved. They can resist God's offer of salvation. Just like those who Stephen was scolding for resisting the Holy Spirit. If they weren't resisting the Holy Spirit's call for them to repent and be saved, what exactly do you think they were resisting?

But this being born again happens even when the person is dead ~ dead ~ in his/her sin. My question is, how can anyone resist being born again if he or she is dead? And for that matter, how can anyone choose anything if he or she is dead? As Jesus said, "With man, this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible."

This is one of the biggest flaws of Calvinism. Scripture itself does not equate being dead in sins with being unable to make a choice of whether to humble oneself and repent of their sins or not. Calvinism has forced that concept on to scripture. Calvinism places a definition on what it means to be dead in sins that scripture itself never gives. Your doctrine should be based on scripture, not on assumptions.

Being dead in one's sins is not a reference to what someone is capable of. You should not try to compare being dead in sins to someone being physically dead and unable to do anything. That's not what being dead in sins means. Being dead in sins is simply a reference to one's spiritual status. Without having the blood of Christ covering their sins, they are instead dead in their sins. It just refers to their status of not being made spiritually alive in Christ. It has nothing to do with one's capability or their consciousness or anything like that.

Remember, Jesus came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners to repentance (Matthew 9:13). Sinners who are dead in their sins. So, clearly, Jesus did not equate being dead in sins with being unable to respond to His call to repentance. So, don't place a definition on what it means to be dead in sins that scripture itself does not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I agree, but I would switch the order. Faith, which is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), comes first, and then our repentance inevitably follows; Paul says it's God's kindness, His grace, that leads us to repentance. And this leading us to repentance is ongoing; our lives as Christians are to be lives of repentance, because we still sin.

I'm talking about repentance in the sense of a change of mind from not being sorry for one's sins to being sorry for them, acknowledging them and not wanting to sin anymore. That is something that goes hand in hand with placing one's faith/trust in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. You're talking about the ongoing process of sanctification. Two different things.

But, I won't want to get into a big discussion about that right now. I'd rather discuss your claim that saving faith is the gift of God. Once again, like you do with Romans 9:18 and other verses, you are drawing a conclusion from a verse that doesn't line up with other scripture. Nowhere does scripture teach that saving faith is the gift of God as if no one can have saving faith unless God gives it to them. Instead, it teaches that eternal life is the gift of God (Romans 6:23). So, with that in mind, what Paul was saying in Ephesians 2:8 is something that wouldn't contradict other things he said. So, what he was saying in that verse is that salvation is the gift of God and it is given by grace through faith and not by works.

If someone can only have faith if it is given to him or her by God, then why does God condemn and punish people for not having faith?

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Please think about the ramifications of your Calvinist beliefs. You believe that the people who do not believe in Christ (and never do) cannot (and never could) believe in Christ. And, yet, you also believe that these same people are condemned and will experience Christ's vengeance and will "be punished with everlasting destruction fom the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power". For what reason would these people condemned and be punished if they have no choice and have no ability to repent and believe? That makes no sense. Calvinism removes any meaningful responsibility from man and has some people being punished for not doing something (repenting and believing) that they weren't even capable of doing. Please explain how that makes any sense.

But we want to repent ~ to turn from our sin and to God (we are no longer slaves to sin and unrighteousness but now slaves to righteousness) where we saw no need before. And again, faith is the gift of God. Once we have been given this new spirit, even the Holy Spirit, then we walk in His statutes and are careful to obey His rules, and good works and the fruit of the Spirit are the result.

You can keep saying faith is the gift of God, but you apparently have a grand total of one verse that you try to use to support that belief. Wouldn't there be more than one verse in scripture which teaches that if it was true? I would certainly think so.

Right, when, we believed, not because we believed. :) Ephesians 1 is so great...

Yes, it's great, yet you don't even interpret it correctly. With that in mind, it's honestly confusing as to why you think it's so great. In my opinion interpreting it as you do leads to the kind of senseless conclusions that I discussed above. Such as thinking that people who don't believe because they can't believe (due to not being given faith) get punished for not believing. What? It's like thinking that someone can get punished for not lifting a truck over their head despite obviously having no ability to do so.

You apparently missed my point about Ephesians 1:12-13. It indicates that we are not sealed with the Holy Spirit until after we have first believed and trusted in Christ. You have it in the other order. You have the Holy Spirit dwelling in a person, making them born again, before the person has faith. Paul taught that faith comes first.

Hey, what you quote here is just after Paul has said, "(God) chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will... In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will..." Surely you would not say that our will determines His, or that we somehow dictate His purposes...

No, I would not. His will and His purpose was to make a way for all people to be saved and He did that by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

What was the basis of God's choosing? Nothing we can discern? It might have just been random for all we know? No, of course not. We shouldn't think that wouldn't be revealed in scripture. It is. God's election is according to His foreknowledge (Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:2, Romans 11:2). You don't seem to be taking that into account.

He created Pharoah ~ as He does everyone ~ knits them together in their mother's womb, as David puts it in Psalm 139. And we are all created in the image of God, right? And, God has a purpose for everyone, right? Was Pharoah created when he was... oh, I'm estimating here, I guess... 40-ish? Well, no, that's ridiculous. But it is possible for God to "raise someone up" for a specific purpose at any time in their lives...

Yes, of course. Are you not seeing my point here? Does scripture say that Pharaoh was predestined to be an evil dictator and be against God? No, it does not. That was his choice. And, once someone makes that choice and repeatedly refuses to repent as Pharaoh did then God can use that person as He sees fit for His purposes if He wants to.

Ah, so our wills determine His. No... And again, God has mercy on whom he wills, and He hardens those whom He wills...

He wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32). Why is it that you don't take all of scripture into account? That is typical of false doctrine.

This is your opinion. I think the positions you've made clear you hold contradict many passages of Scripture... and you even contradict some of the things you say in saying other things. And I'm perfectly okay with you calling that my opinion.

Don't make this claim without backing it up. I completely disagree with this. Give evidence to back this up or don't say it.

I'm brushing nothing off. The natural human condition is a matter of great, great gravity. And as I have said, people are able to do all kinds of things, capable, woodenly speaking of doing a lot of things. I never said anything even remotely to the effect of "not (being) capable of doing anything but resisting the Holy Spirit."

So, what exactly do you think the ones who Stephen was rebuking were resisting that they could have chosen not to resist instead? It's clear to me that they were resisting the call to salvation with an expected response of repentance and faith.

 

[Timtofly]

Not only would that be absolutely consistent with what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:4 (God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"), but to understand "not willing" in any version where that wording is used in the sense that God, conversely speaking, wills that no one perish is to then advocate that everyone will be saved, which is what we know as universalism, which we know not to be the case.

Only for those who deny free will. Universalism states that all are saved, or will be saved, not that God wills all to be saved. Most do not even care if God exists or not, much less what Jesus did on the Cross. The Atonement does not force people to be saved, it just allows all to be saved if that is their free will choice. God offers it freely, and humans can accept it freely. God already did His part. He then, does not force that on any one.

Free will does not nullify God nor the Atonement. People could do nothing about the Atonement, and die lost. They did not reject it. They just never accepted the Atonement. God did not force them to remain unsaved. God still desired as you put it, and willed them to be saved, by not removing them from the Lamb's book of life, until they stood face to face with God.

 

[Timtofly]

No, creation was originally in a non-sinful state, but Adam... messed that up. And now God promises to restore all of His creation to that original state, and He will. See above.

I never implied that was the original way creation was designed. After Adam disobeyed God, and physically died, creation was set up so humans kept conceiving other humans in the same dead flesh state. Not that God condemned each soul in the womb.

God originally left Adam alone, in that Garden, while millions of sons of God lived all over the earth. That is why Adam a son of God was put to sleep, and was divided to allow a male half and a female half that could function separately or together. Obviously it took both to procreate. That implies we don't know how the sons of God, multiplied. Until they started to procreate with Adam's fallen offspring.

Adam disobeyed God, but it took God changing creation to place it under the bondage of sin, and God even changed the birthing process and made it more difficult, and producing more chances of death itself.

 

[Timtofly]

But only His elect

The elect is the largest group, that is everyone. All were elected, when all were written in the Lamb's book of life and sealed with 7 Seals. The redeemed who will receive a body from God, not one handed down from Adam and Eve, will be the remnant, even if in the billions.

As your theology is tainted by human theology and limited Atonement, you have the elect backwards. You think God only chose a few, and that is the elect. You are missing the point of natural and wild branches. Which is symbolic, but Israel as natural branches were born elect, until cut off. Wild branches are still elect, but only if grafted in. Their election by God is useless unless they converted to the OT Law. The elect did not stop existing after the Cross. They just stopped being a natural part of the process, and had to convert like the wild branches. The natural birthing process did not make election sure after the Cross for Israel.

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."

Those glorified are the smallest group. Those He forenew are the elect, that is everyone. Because not everyone will be glorified, not every one God elected will be predestinated. Not all who are predestinated, will be called. Not all that are called, will be justified. And not all those justified, will be glorified. At least not until creation is handed back to God as far as we know.

Those glorified are not all, nor only those elected. Elect of God is not that different from a political election. God voted that the you have life. Satan voted against life. You cast the winning vote. God did know and predestinated in our favor. The call did go out to the whole world, but yet stifled in some places. Justification happens at the second birth, a free will choice. Glorification happens at the Second Coming.


Seems like those who argue against free will, do not see Israel returning to God in the future, nor a Day of the Lord, where sin is removed for a thousand years.