The Five Points of Calvinism

[FreeGrace]

29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29
Is the phrase "eternal life" mentioned in this verse?
JLB

This is becoming irritating. Doesn't matter how many times this is asked, it doesn't matter. Paul is the ONLY one who is authorized to define what he meant by gifts in Rom 11:29. And he did just that in 3 places earlier in Romans; 1:11 for spiritual gifts, 5:15,16,17 for justification and 6:23 for eternal life.

These, and these only, are what he meant by gifts in 11:29. All of them, as noted by the plural 'gifts' in 11:29 are irrevocable. No one has proven otherwise.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes, I agree that is how most would read it - but if these doctrines are indeed true, (and the IF is what we're debating), and if these doctrines themselves do not imply any of the above - then, should the truth be modified to a more palatable form just to avoid what is misinterpretation by the reader?

To say my unbelief is caused by God's not choosing me is to misinterpret cause and effect.
This is how I see it - A king commands all in his kingdom to obey his laws. A rebel group choose to transgress - they are jailed and sentenced to be executed. On the day of their execution, the king sovereignly chooses to have mercy upon half of them. When the execution of the other half is carried out, note, it is still accounted to their transgressing the laws - and not to the king not showing mercy. And the ones who were released did not get to live because of anything they did - but purely due to the king showing mercy. The king is at no fault for not showing mercy to the ones who did get condemned for their own willful transgressions. (Use this analogy in its limited specific application)

Now, the perishing of the unbeliever is not directly accounted to his unbelief itself - but rather the unbelief proves he hasn't any redemptive work done on him to atone for his evil deeds(John 3:18-19), leaving him to face righteous judgement for the entirety of his works alone. This unbeliever's condemnation is accounted to his evil deeds, and not to God not showing mercy.

That is just to address the misinterpretation. As to how to rightly interpret it - TULIP is always stressed as Passive truth and not Active truth - in that it describes reality in truth but does nothing to prescribe. We read the prescriptions into it while it doesn't permit any.

God did promise Rom 10:9. Any man who instead of willing to walk away from the Gospel, chooses to obey it, will be saved - Any which man/woman. The prescription is right there - Repent and believe. Since election is reserved to God's sovereign will alone, there is nothing to prescribe man over it. Now when we observe such a man obeying the prescriptive command to repent and believe - and we passively analyse what happened behind the scenes, that is when election makes sense.

Such a person's believing evidences him being part of the elect and this fact came to light only after he believed - there is simply no way for anyone to know who is or who isn't part of God's elect before you believe - so there are absolutely no prescriptive commands there. Just as one cannot say I am elect before he believes, so he cannot say that he is non-elect before he can most assuredly prove that he will never ever come to believe in God atoning his deeds during his lifetime.

I will get into more detail on this as well as address the other points of your post once we're done till here. Tell me if I need to elaborate over any part of what I've written above.

Seeing that the new rules for the only debate forum I don't see how one can discuss the doctrine of TULIP. We could argue scripture all day along and it would not take in all the doctrine of John Calvin and his TULIP scheme. How would one argue 'I' when Calvin's, two different calls, general and irresistible, isn't in scripture at all. It was just his idea as to why, those hearing the same sermon, some are saved and some are not. He made it up in order to back up his doctrine of election. How could I prove something from scripture to disprove John Calvin's teaching that there are babies who died at birth being tortured in hell. Charles Spurgeon talked about this doctrine in one of his sermons saying that he could not believe our God was like Molech to burn children in fire. But even he could not discredit it with scripture, even being a Calvinist himself.
Lev_18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
I didn't even know Calvin taught this until I read Spurgeon's sermon. Then I went to studying the doctrines of John Calvin. But if one thinks about it, if one was not chosen before they were even born they were condemn from birth and so babies are to be burning in hell for no sin of their own. Which God denies the death penalty except for one's own sin.
Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

[JLB]

This is becoming irritating. Doesn't matter how many times this is asked, it doesn't matter. Paul is the ONLY one who is authorized to define what he meant by gifts in Rom 11:29. And he did just that in 3 places earlier in Romans; 1:11 for spiritual gifts, 5:15,16,17 for justification and 6:23 for eternal life.

These, and these only, are what he meant by gifts in 11:29. All of them, as noted by the plural 'gifts' in 11:29 are irrevocable. No one has proven otherwise.

Eternal life is not mentioned in Romans 11:29.

Here, I will write out the scripture for all to see.

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Since you are not able to answer the question about the verse you have chose to build your doctrine upon, which says:

"Eternal life is an irrevocable gift from God" Romans 11:29

Yet the phrase "eternal life" is not actually found in Romans 11:29, and is presumed, then one can only conclude your doctrine of OSAS is built upon presumption, because the phrase "eternal life" is not found in Romans 11:29.

Here it is, one more time, just to be sure:

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29


JLB

 

[JLB]

Where is the Scripture that SAYS that one is given eternal life on the basis of honoring? Please share. If there isn't any, then it is only an opinion to make such a claim.

Please show me where "eternal life" is mentioned in Romans 11:29.

If there isn't any, then it is only opinion to make such a claim.


JLB

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Please show me anywhere forgiveness is called a gift, not that it matters to the context of Romans.

Here:

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (*the forgiveness of sins--Ephesians 1:7 NASB see below) which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24 NASB)

* "7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)

The hole in this theory is that forgiveness is NEVER called, described or defined as a gift. And, even if it were somewhere in the Bible (which it isn't), Paul never did in Romans.

Well, I just showed you that forgiveness (redemption) is indeed described as a gift in the Bible; and, that it is described as such in Romans.

The context for gifts in Rom 11:29 is found ONLY in Romans.

Then certainly you are now going to acknowledge where Romans refers to the gracious gift of redemption, the forgiveness of sins, right? And, that you will also now acknowledge how the gift of forgiveness most certainly can be revoked in the kingdom. Remember, you used the argument that forgiveness was not a gift in order to make Matthew 18:33-34 NASB go away where it shows a gift of God being taken away. Bottom line is, 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 can not be all inclusive of all gifts spoken of in the Bible, including Romans, because, as I've proven, forgiveness is indeed a gift, and we see where forgiveness can be taken away in Matthew 18:32-35 NASB.

We don't even have to determine what is being forgiven in the Matthew passage to settle this dispute, because you are the one that used the argument that forgiveness--any forgiveness--is not a free gift in order to remove it from the list of gifts that Paul said are irrevocable in Romans 11:29 NASB, because we see it is revocable in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB. Then you insisted that Paul's gifts are confined to the context of Romans where forgiveness, even if it was a gift, is not even spoken about in Romans for it to be a part of Paul's list of gifts anyway. But I showed you that not only is forgiveness a gift, and that it is revocable, but that Paul does in fact talk about the free gift of redemption/forgiveness in Romans, the context you yourself have decided determines the definition and scope of Paul's gifts which can not be revoked. But, is a scope that, if you define it that way, directly contradicts Jesus' teaching that forgiveness--a free gift--can and will be revoked in the kingdom by his Father. Your doctrine loses on all fronts here, friend. I proved all three contentions of your doctrine about forgiveness and the gifts of God to Israel wrong, friend.

 

[FreeGrace]

Eternal life is not mentioned in Romans 11:29.

Why ignore that eternal life WAS mentioned in Rom 6:23 as a gift of God?

Here, I will write out the scripture for all to see.
For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29
Since you are not able to answer the question about the verse you have chose to build your doctrine upon, which says:

"Eternal life is an irrevocable gift from God" Romans 11:29

This claim is very disingenuous. I have included both Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29 to make my point, and NO ONE from your side has proven otherwise.

Yet the phrase "eternal life" is not actually found in Romans 11:29, and is presumed,

This is really laughable. Paul TOLD us what he considered to be God's gifts. Spiritual gifts from 1:11, justification from 5:15,16,17, an eternal life from 6:23.

The actual PRESUMPTION here is to claim that Rom 11:29 doesn't include eternal life. And that claim is totally without merit. No one has shown that Paul didn't mean to include eternal life in the gifts of God that are irrevocable.

then one can only conclude your doctrine of OSAS is built upon presumption, because the phrase "eternal life" is not found in Romans 11:29.

If one is totally ignorant of Rom 1:11, 5:15,16,17 and 6:23, then one might be presuming something. But when the author of the book DEFINES for us what he MEANS when he uses the word 'gift', all presumption is removed.

Here it is, one more time, just to be sure:

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29
JLB

Ignoring the 3 previous uses of 'gift' by Paul is beyond reason.

And no one has proven that Paul meant ANYTHING OTHER than justification, eternal life and spiritual gifts in Rom 11:29.

It is your side that presumes and assumes what Paul meant by 'gift', since we know what he did mean by it in 3 passages before he penned Rom 11:29.

So, prove your claim about what he meant about gifts in Rom 11:29.

All you've done is deny my claims, in spite of the evidence. But there has been ZERO evidence for your claim.

Why should anyone believe a claim that is totally without merit?

 

[FreeGrace]

Please show me where "eternal life" is mentioned in Romans 11:29.

If there isn't any, then it is only opinion to make such a claim.
JLB

I've shown ALL the places where Paul DEFINED and DESCRIBED what he meant by the word 'gift' in Romans before he penned 11:29.

I beg you to stop embarrassing yourself by your denial of the obvious truth that eternal life is irrevocable.

Rom 11:29 means something, but you've not proven in the least that it means something other than what Paul had already defined as a gift of God.

 

[FreeGrace]

Here:

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (*the forgiveness of sins--Ephesians 1:7 NASB see below) which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24 NASB)

* "7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)
Well, I just showed you that forgiveness (redemption) is indeed described as a gift in the Bible; and, that it is described as such in Romans.

Not even close. What was shown was that justification is the gift, just as Paul described in Rom 5:15,16,17. And Eph 1:7 has NO relevance or context to Rom 11:29. When Paul mentioned "gift" in 11:29, we know what he meant by HOW he used it previously IN Romans. Not in Ephesians. The Roman readers of his letter didn't even have his letter to the Ephesians.

My study Bible indicates that Romans was written between 56 and 58 AD, while Ephesians was written between 60 andd 61 AD. So Ephesians HADN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET!!!

Then certainly you are now going to acknowledge where Romans refers to the gracious gift of redemption, the forgiveness of sins, right?

I will repeat; Paul NEVER described forgiveness as a gift. All your manipulations of verses doesn't help you. Paul defined 'gift' within Romans, which I've repeatedly pointed out:
1:11 spiritual gifts
3:24, 5:15,16,17 justification
6:23 eternal life

THOSE are what Paul means when he used the word 'gift' in Rom 11:29.

And, that you will also now acknowledge how the gift of forgiveness most certainly can be revoked in the kingdom.

This is just an assumption based on a faulty understanding of a parable.

Remember, you used the argument that forgiveness was not a gift in order to make Matthew 18:33-34 NASB go away where it shows a gift of God being taken away.[/QUOTE]
I didn't have to "take it away", since it was NEVER in play. Totally out of context. Why would the Roman readers think of Matt 18 when they read Rom 11:29? That makes utterly NO SENSE at all.

Bottom line is, 'gifts' in Romans 11:29 can not be all inclusive of all gifts spoken of in the Bible, including Romans

This is completely irrelevant, since I never said it was "all inclusive of all gifts spoken of in the Bible". How ridiculous. The point is that Paul defined for us what he meant by the word in Romans. So, up to Rom 11:29, WHATEVER HE DESCRIBED OR CALLED A GIFT APPLIES TO 11:29.

No one from you side has proven otherwise.

We don't even have to determine what is being forgiven in the Matthew passage to settle this dispute, because you are the one that used the argument that forgiveness--any forgiveness--is not a free gift in order to remove it from the list of gifts that Paul said are irrevocable in Romans 11:29 NASB, because we see it is revocable in Matthew 18:23-35 NASB. Then you insisted that Paul's gifts are confined to the context of Romans where forgiveness, even if it was a gift, is not even spoken about in Romans for it to be a part of Paul's list of gifts anyway. But I showed you that not only is forgiveness a gift, and that it is revocable, but that Paul does in fact talk about the free gift of redemption/forgiveness in Romans, the context you yourself have decided determines the definition and scope of Paul's gifts which can not be revoked. But, is a scope that, if you define it that way, directly contradicts Jesus' teaching that forgiveness--a free gift--can and will be revoked in the kingdom by his Father. Your doctrine loses on all fronts here, friend. I proved all three contentions of your doctrine about forgiveness and the gifts of God to Israel wrong, friend.

Nope. All that has been done in your post was to twist the clear meaning of Scripture totally out of shape so that no one would be able to understand the truth.

Fact: eternal life is a gift of God. Rom 6:23
Fact: God's gifts are irrevocable. Rom 11:29

It doesn't get any more clear than that.

Context refutes your view.

 

[FreeGrace]

Let's try some simple and straightforward logic. It goes this way:

IF A = B, and B = C, THEN A = C. This is not debatable.

A = eternal life.
B = a gift of God.
C = irrevocable.

Rom 6:23 says that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B).
Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C).

Therefore, eternal life A = C, or eternal life is irrevocable.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Not even close. What was shown was that justification is the gift, just as Paul described in Rom 5:15,16,17. And Eph 1:7 has NO relevance or context to Rom 11:29. When Paul mentioned "gift" in 11:29, we know what he meant by HOW he used it previously IN Romans. Not in Ephesians. The Roman readers of his letter didn't even have his letter to the Ephesians.

I showed you redemption--the free gift of grace we have from God--is exactly synonymous with the forgiveness of sins. But somehow you missed the plain scriptures I posted that say that? Here they are again:

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (*the forgiveness of sins--Ephesians 1:7 NASB see below) which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24 NASB)

* "7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)

What you have to do is somehow show that redemption and the forgiveness of sins are NOT the same thing in the verses above.

My study Bible indicates that Romans was written between 56 and 58 AD, while Ephesians was written between 60 andd 61 AD. So Ephesians HADN'T EVEN BEEN WRITTEN YET!!!

I will repeat; Paul NEVER described forgiveness as a gift. All your manipulations of verses doesn't help you.

Yes, look how horribly I'm manipulating the scriptures.

24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption (*the forgiveness of sins--Ephesians 1:7 NASB see below) which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24 NASB)

* "7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." (Ephesians 1:7 NASB)

Paul says our redemption is the forgiveness of our sins. Paul says our redemption is the free gift of our justification, but somehow your doctrine wants to argue that the forgiveness of sins is not the free gift of our redemption, even though Paul says the gracious free gift of redemption and the forgiveness of sin are one and the same thing? Tell me you're kidding.

This is just an assumption based on a faulty understanding of a parable.

Just saying 'you're wrong' is not a suitable answer. Show us how the free gift of forgiveness passed out in the Matthew 18 parable, which then got revoked is not really a free gift, and therefore, does not represent a free gift that can be revoked by God in the kingdom (as the parable says it can be in the kingdom). That's what you have to do. Just saying, 'no, you're wrong' ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Let's try some simple and straightforward logic. It goes this way:

IF A = B, and B = C, THEN A = C. This is not debatable.

A = eternal life.
B = a gift of God.
C = irrevocable.

Rom 6:23 says that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B).
Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C).

Therefore, eternal life A = C, or eternal life is irrevocable.

Problem: The scriptures do in fact speak of a gift of God in the kingdom that is revocable--forgiveness (Matthew 18:23-35 NASB). IOW, B and C are not categorically equal. Your logic fails at that point.

It doesn't matter what you think the forgiveness is about. The point is you can't deny is it is a free gift and that Jesus said it is revocable in the kingdom. So, if you want to insist that Romans 11:29 is all inclusive of all gifts of God then you are creating a direct contradiction against what Jesus said that there is indeed a gift in the kingdom that is revocable. Your answer was then to decide that the context of the gifts was only that of Romans and that Romans speaks nothing of the free gift of forgiveness, but I showed you it does. You've run out places to run. Your doctrine has been shown to be false.


And as for your ABC logic, it does add up in regard to what I've been saying:

A = redemption
B = free gift of God
C = forgiveness of sin

If A = B, and it surely does as we both agree. And if A = C, and it surely does as I've proven to you, then B HAS TO = C. But your doctrine insists this plain logic is not true. Well, I showed you it is true.

 

[JLB]

I've shown ALL the places where Paul DEFINED and DESCRIBED what he meant by the word 'gift' in Romans before he penned 11:29

There are scriptures written by both Paul and Jesus that discuss and contain the phrase "eternal life".

However, Romans 11:29 is not one of them.

Let's look again -

For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

No mention of eternal life.

Sorry man, your doctrine is based completely on your opinion.

And eternal life is an irrevocable gift based on this scripture, will continue to be your opinion, until this scripture some contains the phrase "eternal life".


JLB

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Good thing I'm not involved in this.
I know my ABC's better than all of you.

 

[JLB]

Ignoring the 3 previous uses of 'gift' by Paul is beyond reason.

I haven't ignored any scriptures containing the word gift.

What I also am not going to ignore is, Romans 11:29 doesn't contain the phrase "eternal life".

JLB

 

[JLB]

Good thing I'm not involved in this.
I know my ABC's better than all of you.

Please jump on in.

 

[Malachi]

Getting back to the other letters of the alphabet pertaining to Calvinism, we come to "L" which stands for "Limited Atonemenr". Here's how Theopedia defines this false teaching:

The doctrine of definite atonement (or more commonly, limited atonement) addresses the purpose of the atoning death of Christ. It maintains that God's design and intent in sending Christ to die on the cross was to pay for the sins and secure the redemption of those whom God has predetermined to save, namely the elect. Therefore, the primary benefits of his death (especially as an atonement) were designed for and accrue only to believers.

In other words, Christ died only for the elect.

But since, according to Scripture, Christ died for the sins of the whole world, since the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, since Christ is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world, we can see why Limited Atonement is patently false. But for TULIP to be consistent with itself, they had no choice but to distort Bible truth.

 

[ivdavid]

How could I prove something from scripture to disprove John Calvin's teaching that there are babies who died at birth being tortured in hell.

Well, as I've stated earlier, I've not read any of John Calvin's writings and I'm not here to discuss him. I'm here to give an explanation of the faith I have, more specifically why I hold TULIP to be true. So I take your question to be - "how can TULIP conclude that there are babies who died at birth being tortured in hell?" My answer is quite simply that it doesn't conclude that at all, neither can it.

In fact, I think there's sufficient evidence in Scripture to believe all babies are in the kingdom of God, case in point, David's infant. As to how such a universal guarantee holds over all babies and can simultaneously be reconciled with the doctrines of TULIP, especially unconditional election - I suppose we've already discussed it in this post and the one following that.

How would one argue 'I' when Calvin's, two different calls, general and irresistible, isn't in scripture at all.

Well, I don't know where Calvin got it from, but I sure did infer it from Scriptures alone - obviously not with the exact same names but rather the concepts. I use terms like irresistible grace since it's easily recognized in these forums.
Eze 36:22-28 are promises of God which cannot fail (Gal 3:17) - man himself cannot resist His promises to be fulfilled in him. Or do you believe there's a possibility that God is hoping against hope that some men will somehow choose to believe in Him and fulfill His purpose of being God to a chosen people, given the probable outcome of every single person using their own self-discretion to freely choose to resist His call and grace? Or is it that God 'promises' ahead based on His passive knowledge of the future - which eventually only amounts to a cheat call and not a purposeful glorious act of power. The alternative is irresistible grace, as I see it.

 

[Deborah13]

Or do you believe there's a possibility that God is hoping against hope that some men will somehow choose to believe in Him and fulfill His purpose of being God to a chosen people, given the probable outcome of every single person using their own self-discretion to freely choose to resist His call and grace? Or is it that God 'promises' ahead based on His passive knowledge of the future - which eventually only amounts to a cheat call and not a purposeful glorious act of power. The alternative is irresistible grace, as I see it.

I believe this......
2Co 5:18 And the all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and did give to us the ministration of the reconciliation,
2Co 5:19 how that God was in Christ--a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation,
2Co 5:20 in behalf of Christ, then, we are ambassadors, as if God were calling through us, we beseech, in behalf of Christ, `Be ye reconciled to God;'
Paul clearly, clearly says that God reconciled Himself to the world through Jesus Christ. Paul, then says we are to reconcile ourselves to Him. It is a choice that we have to make. God doesn't do it for us.
If you think that when the Holy Spirit and the Christ Himself draws all men onto Himself that at least some men will not have the will to choose Him, then you must not know just how wonderful that Gospel message is to a sinner with a conscience.
Joh 12:32 and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.
Calvinism says that God didn't reconcile Himself to the world in Jesus Christ. It says that the Holy Spirit and the Lord Jesus does not draw all men onto Him, only some men.
Try reading why all men, who do not receive the truth, are not excused from condemnation. Calvinism blames God for that because He doesn't call them with 'Irresistible Grace'. But that is not what Paul said in Romans 1.

As far as the chosen and foreknowledge, I believe God planned (foreknowledge) that He would send the Savior and He knew that many would believe and would be His chosen people. That was the foreknowledge that could not fail because God willed it to be so. Jesus was the Only Chosen One, and all people who believe the Gospel message become chosen ones, too.
Mat 16:18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
Isa 55:11 So is My word that goeth out of My mouth, It turneth not back unto Me empty, But hath done that which I desired, And prosperously effected that for which I sent it.
When God called out the Hebrews from Egypt to have for Himself a chosen people, it was a people as a group, not each individual one. When He said Israel my chosen people, He knew not all of them as individuals would abide in Him. Many of them would not have the faith of Abraham. Only those who had the faith of Abraham would become His chosen/elect. See Romans again. Only so many in Elijah time believed. Whether that 7,000 is exact or a symbolic number I don't know but it wasn't all of them in that generation.
Rom 11:4 but what saith the divine answer to him? `I left to Myself seven thousand men, who did not bow a knee to Baal.'
These were the ones who believed God, through grace by faith like Abraham, and God protected them from Jezebel's persecution.
Rom 11:5 So then also in the present time a remnant according to the choice of grace there hath been;
Rom 11:6 and if by grace, no more of works, otherwise the grace becometh no more grace; and if of works, it is no more grace, otherwise the work is no more work.
By God's will he gave us the ability to chose and says choose life, choose ME.

 

[ivdavid]

Paul clearly, clearly says that God reconciled Himself to the world through Jesus Christ. Paul, then says we are to reconcile ourselves to Him. It is a choice that we have to make. God doesn't do it for us.

It is oversimplification of Paul's writings to simply state -
1. Reconciliation through faith is a choice that we have to make.
2. God doesn't do this choice for us.
3. Therefore, we alone are the causative agents of us making that choice.

When Paul has also included the following -
1. Reconciliation through faith is a choice that we have to make.
2. This choice is never made by us while we are in the flesh.
3. It is God alone who can rebirth man in the spirit by His mercy.
4. We, who no longer are in the flesh, but in the spirit - having been rebirthed by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit - now willingly make that choice of reconciliation through faith ourselves.
5. God doesn't do this choice for us.
6. However, we wouldn't have made that choice ourselves if not for His mercy unto this purpose in steps 3-4.
7. Therefore, God alone is the causative agent of us making that choice.
(Refer Scriptural refs in this Total Depravity post and this analogy post for semantic clarity if necessary)

We might disagree upon whether regeneration precedes our believing or not - but that again stems from the above statement 2. So, do you believe man in the flesh can do anything that is pleasing to God? I believe he cannot and never will. Please refer the last part of the above Total Depravity post link for the Scriptural references. If required I'll post them all over again.

The other point of contention could be over whether God has mercy upon ALL people alike or not. I'll continue that in a later post to keep it more readable.

 

[FreeGrace]

I showed you redemption--the free gift of grace we have from God--is exactly synonymous with the forgiveness of sins. But somehow you missed the plain scriptures I posted that say that?

Let's try some simple and straightforward logic. It goes this way:

IF A = B, and B = C, THEN A = C. This is not debatable.

A = eternal life.
B = a gift of God.
C = irrevocable.

Rom 6:23 says that eternal life (A) is a gift of God (B).
Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts (B) are irrevocable (C).

Therefore, eternal life A = C, or eternal life is irrevocable.