-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
God's Conditional Grace
- Thread starter Ernest T. Bass
- Start date
M
Mitspa
Guest
Eternal salvation is not for sale:biglol
I am forever saved according to the greastest Power on the earth!
The Word of God!
Rev 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Isa 51:5 (KJV)
My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.
Isa 51:6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Isa 51:7
Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
I believe that it's an undeniable fact of the scriptures.. That we are placed into the body of Christ when we are baptized into that one body by the same Spirit. Eph 1:13-14 and 1 Cor 12:13 make this perfectly clear.
Because it's a commandment from the Lord to baptize... Now let me ask you this.. Do you SAVE yourself every time you obey the Lord, or more importantly, lose your salvation if you disobey?
Is this all about the one true church thing... And if so, doesn't that get old ?
M
Mitspa
Guest
Lets follow the "religious logic"? God! covers one with His Holy Spirit," Which is GOD"!
Yet this does not prove salvation?
Act 10:45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
It proved salvation to Peter!
NO !we need the approval of some "religious scribe" in some so-called church?
Joh 5:44
How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? :biglol
jasoncran
Member
- May 17, 2009
- 38,271
- 185
Eternal salvation is not for sale:biglol
I am forever saved according to the greastest Power on the earth!
The Word of God!
Rev 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, andthatthe shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Isa 51:5 (KJV)
My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.
Isa 51:6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Isa 51:7
Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.
so your church doesnt say "he or she came to the saving knowledge of the lord"?
if yours does then why not agree with peter on the false prophets who knew jesus and then deny him?why does paul teach secure your salvation? why did the lord say he that endure to the the end the same shall be saved? if christ has done it and we dont have to endure then why would he say that?
R
rrowell
Guest
Yes, we enter into the body of Christ when we are baptized into that one body, by that same Spirit, the Spirit is the acting agent, and after hearing the word (Spirit acting agent) and obeying it (Spirit acting agent), but what is that one baptism that puts us there?, it is being baptized "into death" Rom 6:4, IOW water baptism which is by submersion the burial of our sinful ways (Spirit acting agent), and coming up out of that water, likened to Christs resurrection "a new life" (Spirit acting agent) we too become a new man (Spirit acting agent)... and as did he we walk in "newness of life" so should we Rom 6:4, and at his point we are given the Gift of the Holy Spirit, because we "obeyed" the Gospel we have in fact had the promise that was given to us "sealed", our sins now remitted (the Acting agent now dwells in us) Eph 1:13-14, Act 2:38
The saving is Gods part, the obeying is Mans part, when we disobey we disconnect ourselves by a choice that we made and can unless we repent (another baptism not required, that was sealed) we can in fact lose our salvation.
No older than the day of Pentecost.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
Ok, then how can you possibly say that receiving the free gift of the SPIRIT has nothing to do with salvation ? That's literally saying that GOD placing us into HIS BODY miraculously by HIS SPIRIT has nothing to do with salvation.
That's why imo it is absurd.
Isn't it obvious.. for John baptized with water but He that comes after me shall baptize you with the HOLY SPIRIT !
And it's just as Peter says.. a LIKE FIGURE.. and a clear conscience because of HIS baptism upon Calvary's forsaken cross, where HE ALONE purged our sins, and bore them in His own body.. and HIS being RAISED from the DEAD..
Did you know that you can only be saved ONCE.. and that it's impossible to be come to repentance again, because in doing so that would crucify Christ again and put Him to an open shame..? It's a biblical fact... so how much disobedience and sin unseals us unto the day of redemption.. ?
I wasn't speaking of His church... but rather those who would exclusively claim it as their own.. so is that what you believe, that your assembly of believers is His one true church, and all other assemblies don't cut it ?
Yes. I'll clarify further where I think you might have misunderstood.Ernest T. Bass said:
That's pretty much what Christ did on the cross, right? We, in the flesh, were subject to the law of sin and its inevitable wages, death. God fulfills this law on our behalf by regenerating us in the spirit and by taking on our condemnation in the flesh(Rom 8:1-4). How do you reconcile this?
Fair enough when you word it that way. But why don't you phrase it as simply "man is certainly able to keep them" period. Why the conditional "if he so chooses"? What is Paul choosing in Rom 7:19-20? Is man able to choose to keep God's command? I'm guessing your answer would be yes, given the following.
Why so? I did answer this in that post I gave a link to - but I shall repeat it here.
The law of works that does not justify is stated in Lev 18:5 - The conditional that if a man Does the commandments of God, and the result that he shall live. This same conditional is mentioned in Deut 30:16 and is extended to the options of Deut 30:19 and the specific command to choose life and blessing and to not choose death and curse. According to you, is this conditional of Lev 18:5 met by any created man choosing life instead of curse here in Deut 30:19? If you believe at least one man has chosen life and not curse here, how do you explain Gal 3:10-13? If on the other hand, you believe no man has chosen what was made conditional here, what sense do you make of God's actions here?
I would say that God's purpose in commanding His righteous ideals that were impossible of man was to primarily show man his own inability in the flesh - to then seek what caused such inability in his flesh - in the process recognize sin in his flesh and its exceeding sinfulness to corrupt,deceive and enslave - and to run to Christ in total dependence upon what He alone has done and does (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:13,Gal 3:24).
Such verses have already been discussed enough elsewhere and we know there isn't just one single interpretation to these. For instance, how would you explain God's will to save all people not being fulfilled when all things are possible to God except denying His own nature? You'd most probably say God wills that man has what you refer to as freewill. Then isn't there a will of God to grant man freewill superseding the will of God to have all men saved? Then why can't there be a will of God that desires His wrath to be shown,His power to be made known and the riches of His glory to be revealed in sovereign election - why can't such a will supersede the will of God to have all men saved?
The rest of your post seems to revolve around this point. For the sake of brevity, I shall address just this in my next post - if you need anything else in particular to be addressed from the rest of your post, please highlight that part and I'll clarify that.
But before addressing this, I am curious to know how you approach a discussion such as this. What are your assumptions? Do you assume that I would willingly hold a doctrine that puts culpability on God? Wouldn't you first want to know how I've understood this doctrine so as to not deny the glory of God - more so, when I keep saying I hold on to this doctrine because it denies the flesh even the slightest glory and hence is unto the glory of God alone. Why do you declare your final conclusion on the matter before evaluating all available data?
Yes. I hold both these as true.Ernest T. Bass said:
Yes, if God created man depraved - it would be God's fault. But God created man and all creation good. God did not create man depraved and hence it isn't His fault. Man is depraved now after the fall because of sin in the flesh - sin entered into the world through one man in the flesh and flesh is born out of flesh - and God has in no way caused the existence of sin. Why must there be blame on Him now?
Man in the flesh, corrupted by sin in the flesh, does not obey the law of God - neither can he, for the inclinations of the flesh are in enmity against God. God commands man to do good - and man in the flesh disobeys. God has the right to condemn man here itself for disobeying Him but of His universal grace, He provides an offer of salvation and commands man to choose it by repenting and believing into Christ - and man in the flesh still disobeys. At this point, is not God even more justified in condemning such a disobedient rebellious man for his sins? You'd ask - but what else can such a man in the flesh do but disobey God - isn't God then unjust for not giving this man any other way out. But God did provide the way out in His promises in Christ and man in the flesh chose to reject it. You'd further ask - but this man in the flesh would never choose the way out, how then can he save himself? My reply is that he cannot because he so chose it himself - and as you see it, God permits man to choose his own condemnation. The fact that man in the flesh chooses only death does not imply that a choice wasn't given from God's end. Culpability lies at the choice-maker, which so far is, man in the flesh. You might object saying that all this might be just so if there was a level playing field - If man could choose either which way and then he chose death, that seems justified - but this isn't a level playing field because sin in the flesh is already dragging man to an inevitable death - isn't God then at fault for not providing a level field for each man? And I'd say God is at fault only if He caused the imbalance - God on His part has provided the level field - sin entered the world and caused the imbalance - God did not cause sin and hence did not cause the imbalance and hence is not at fault. Can we then conclude at this point that man is condemned for his own sins and that God has caused none of the imbalance and hence is not at fault at all thus far?
But what I state is inclusive of every single created man - every single created man is guilty before God and is deserving of condemnation and is incapable of pleasing God since there is no good thing in the flesh because of sin in the flesh - how then is a man saved? Here comes the concept of mercy. Man stands before God awaiting His just condemnation - and God exercises His Sovereign authority to have mercy or not. Note, either which way, God is not unjust. God can condemn him, because that is the judgement that follows that man's sins as we saw in the preceding paragraph. God can show mercy because He is the judge who has all sovereign authority to condemn or forgive. God would be unjust if He condemned an innocent man but that, he is not, as seen in the previous paragraph. God would be unjust if He condemned any man who believed into Christ for mercy and forgiveness since that would be God breaking His own promises but man has not believed either and has chosen to reject God's offer of salvation as seen in the previous paragraph. At this point, it's up to God to will to have mercy or not. And there is no fault upon God so far either. Would you disagree anywhere here?
Your objection might be that if it were only up to God's will to have mercy and if not all are saved - is it God's will that some not be saved? The answer is yes - and as we've seen above in the 1Tim point, this question is not unique to my worldview alone - the answer your worldview provides for this should suffice. But you might say that your worldview at least puts the onus on man thereby keeping all of God's actions equal towards every man whereas my worldview seems to make God partial since He wills to have mercy only upon some. This is where you'll have to differentiate between sovereignty and partiality. The only difference between the two is that partiality bases its choice upon the objects whereas sovereignty bases its choice upon the subject alone. If a king were to have mercy upon one and not another based on some attributes in them per se, such as the first transgressor being richer than the second or more flattering of the king than the second - then the king is partial. But if the king took no account of any of their attributes and in that he treated them equally, and based his choice entirely on just himself and what he counselled for his own purposes - then he's being sovereign and not partial. Do you still find any injustice in God's ways here?
I don't mean it this way. If God were to have His mercy upon this guilty transgressor as a sequence of events and not just a singular event, and He was the efficacious AND sufficient cause of all these events, then that's what you have in a regenerated believer who is in Christ alone, by grace alone, through faith alone - and these sequence of events would be more like milestones in the work of God in us, for our assurance, rather than conditions to be met by us ourselves.
Yes, nothing says so. But the argument from silence cannot be proof to the contrary. So you haven't proved it otherwise either. And I've never referred to it as God "forcing" His people to do His will - He efficiently and sufficiently causes it, without violating their own choices - as a new creature, we have new inclinations and these are in accordance with God's will - unlike the old man who has only the inclinations of the flesh which are in enmity against God.
Secondly, you keep clinging to these passages that are similar to God's miracle in Namaan's healing. What conditions was Lazarus to meet in order for God to work His miracle of bringing him back to life? Should Lazarus have first obeyed the command of Jesus to "Come forth" to then be brought back to life or was he brought back to life such that he could then hear the command and obey it? Well, regeneration works that way.
Would you put Acts 16:14 in the same context or do you understand it differently? If you understand it differently, could you share it.
I've written a lot here outlining the framework within which we could iron out individual points. So perhaps, we could discuss smaller parts of this at a time before moving to the next. Also, I might not be able to reply promptly until the weekend.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
- May 17, 2012
- 2,094
- 140
- Thread starter
- #150
I think i will let the legalist, unsave people! That seems to be their favorite hobby?
If a calvinist believes they are saved by their doctrine, at least they are showing some sort of FAITH in Gods Word! I will leave it to others to "unsave" them?
How about this scripture for all you who seek to "unsave" others?
Rom 10:6
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
Rom 10:7
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
When God told Naaman he would have to dip 7 times in the Jordan River to come clean, was Naaman a 'legalist' when he did as God said in obeying by dipping 7 times in the Jordan River?
Apparently anyone who is willing to obey God is a legalist. I don't quite understand that thinking, but it seems very prevalent.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Act 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
I heard a very interesting, moving sermon one time entitled "Don't Tell Me What to Do".
Last edited by a moderator:
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
Perfect example IMO... If it is GOD who is giving us His Holy Spirit, then obviously He has declared us obedient to the faith of Christ...
Who are we to say otherwise ?
The rest of the story is that God does NOT give His Spirit to those which do not obey Him.
Eventide
Member
- Jul 31, 2010
- 3,477
- 2
I couldn't agree more...
S
savedbygrace57
Guest
Thats the only way one does obey God, by God giving them the Spirit ! Acts 5:32
32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
In the greek it reads The Holy Ghost God hath given to them obeying Him, obedience is evidence of having been given the Spirit.
Peter said in His Epistle 1 Pet 1:2
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
The sanctification of the Spirit [New Birth] precedes and effects the obedience !
So you are absolutely in error !
You obviously give man credit for obedience to God, where I give it to Christ and The Holy Spirit !
R
rrowell
Guest
It seems absurd to you because you do not see how the Holy Spirit was applied, there is in fact a difference in being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" (Christ and Christ ONLY doing the baptizing) and "baptized by the Holy Spirit" (The Holy Spirit doing the baptizing).
Apostles, house of Cornelius -> baptized with the Holy Spirit (only happened twice, once to the Jews (Apostles) and once to the Gentiles (house of Cornelius)), they were "immersed" in the Holy Spirit (Only Christ can do this). this was to show God was not a respecter of person testified by the very first words preached to them by the mouth of Peter:
Acts 10:34 (KJV)
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
and why Ernest T. Bass said it was irrelevant to salvation.
The other is baptism "by the Holy Spirit", the one that puts us INTO CHRIST Rom. 6:4 and why after they were baptized "with the Holy Spirit", Peter told them to obey the command of Christ, to be baptized "by the Holy Spirit" putting them "INTO CHRIST". Rom. 6:4
Yes, the baptism of John WAS different than the baptism brought by Christ, and those that were baptized by John had to then be baptized again:
Acts 19:2-5 (KJV)
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
The same baptism of Rom 6:3-4 putting them "INTO CHRIST"
Yes I know you can only be saved ONCE, this is why there is only "one baptism" putting us INTO CHRIST, but repentance is on going (perpetual) we see one can be SAVED, but can FALL from his saved state from lack of obedience (sinning) as show to us by Simon (a Christian) who sinned, and what did Peter tell him?:
Acts 8:22-24 (KJV)
22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
24 Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.
Should Simon "Repent" he would again be placed INTO CHRIST. no baptism again, only repentance required...
Personally it bothers me when ANYONE uses the statement "my Church" and it is unfortunate that every assembly contains 'believers" and those who claim to be "believers", but no matter the building (or if there be no building) that they worship (assemble) in, it is ONLY BELIEVERS in Christs Church!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Holy Spirit gives one the ability to obey God, that is true, but the act of repenting must come prior to the Holy Spirit being given...
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Repentance is the act of changing from our disobedient ways to the way of obeying God.
Ernest T. Bass
Member
- May 17, 2012
- 2,094
- 140
- Thread starter
- #158
On the cross, Christ did not believe for man, repent for man, confess with His mouth for man or be baptized for man. What Christ did on the cross was make salvation available to all men that choose to obey Him, Heb 5:9, by believing, repenting, confessing and being baptized.
What Christ did on the cross He did for all, yet all will not be saved for all will not obey Him and meet the conditions He placed upon His free gift.
Jn 6:27 "Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed."
Jesus said Himself to labour for everlasting life which He gives.
1) Jesus said to work for everlasting life, so that settles the issue.
2) He said to work for everlasting life which He gives. He gives it so it is free, yet he said to work for it. In this context believing is the work, so those that meet this condition shall gain Christ's free gift of everlasting life. And this work of believing does not mean one is earning everlasting life no more than Naaman earned His cleansing by doing the work of dipping.
3) in verse 28 the people asked Jesus "What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?" They asked what shall WE DO not what will Jesus do for them.
Note that in verse 29 Jesus did NOT respond by telling them to do nothing for He has already done / fullfilled everything for them.
4) Verse 29 Jesus answers their queston of verse 28 "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."
Jesus here say YOU DO the work of believing. SO Jesus does not fulfill these conditions for man man has to work and fulfill them himself.
ivdavid said:
Because man must choose to either obey the conditions or choose not to. Keeping or not keeping the condtions is not something God forces upon man.
In Rom 7:19ff Paul is describing the difficulty he had living under and trying to keep the OT law. It was an hard struggle to keep the OT law perfectly and not sin. Paul is not describing himself in Rom 7 as a "totally depraved" individual for in that context Paul says he had a desire to do right, he "delighted in the law of God", "when I would do good", "with the mind I myself serve the law of God". This does not describe a totally depraved person.
ivdavid said:
In Gal 3:10-13 a transition from the OT to NT law had been made and the Galatians went back to the OT law which Christ took out of they on His cross, Col 2:14. So no one today can be justified by keeping the OT law which Christ took out of the way but those who did live under the OT law when it was still in effect could be reckoned righteous by keeping it. John's parents lived under the OT law and Luke says of them "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." They were righteous for they condtionally walked in all the commandments of the Lord blameless.
ivdavid said:
It's not impossible for man to keep God's commands. God commanded the Jews to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. It was not impossible for them to keep that command or any other command God gave them. Again, John's parent were able to walk in ALL God's commandments and ordinances BLAMELESS, Lk 1:6.
Even under the NT John said "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous."
For God to give man commands that were impossible for man to keep would be grievous, onerous, burdensome, cruel and God would NOT be the loving, merciful, just God the bible says He is but instead an unjust, cruel ogre who gives commands He knows will be grievous and impossible for man to keep just so He can punish man.
ivdavid said:
I do know that Calvinists try and define all - pas according to their theology and not according to the context.
ivdavid said:
When the bible says it is God's will that all men be saved, this will is an example of God's preceptive will and not His decretive will.
When God decrees something it will come to pass for it is something God has purposed to do Himself. But His preceptive will is what He desires or wishes man to do and man will not always do what God desires or wishes him to do as can be seen in Mt 23:37 where it was Jesus' preceptive will those Jews WOULD be under His protective wing, but those Jews WOULD NOT. God's preceptive will does not violate man's free will forcing all men to be saved and it is not in God's nature to violate man's free will but God allows man to exercise that free will God gave him.
ivdavid said:
I do not know if your Calvinist or not but Calvinism does put blame and culpability on God for the lost. I have on some forums come across some who have no problem with putting blame on God.
In this thread here, I have said that receiving God's grace is conditonal upon man meeting certain conditions God has put upon His grace.
Your position as I have understood it is that man is unable to keep those conditions, so by God's unconditional grace God will fulfill those conditions for man. That means if I am lost God must have failed to fulfill those conditions for me.
But God has made it man's responsibilty to keep those conditions, it's not God's responsibilty to fulfill those conditions for man.
Calvinism, [again I don't know if you're one or not], makes man's eternal destiny in 100% control of God, it's all God's sovereignty that determines man's eternal destiny and man has no part and by doing so it takes ALL responsibility and accountablity from man and puts it all upon God. So if I am lost it is 100% God's fault and 0% my fault.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ernest T. Bass
Member
- May 17, 2012
- 2,094
- 140
- Thread starter
- #159
So you are putting blame and culpability upon God for the lost.
So if I am lost it God's fault for failing to cause me to obey.
It is not my fault for not obeying when that is out of my control. You may say I am totally depraved so I choose to sin myself. But if I am totally depraved who's fault is that? It's not my fault for I did not choose to be born totally depraved. God forms the spirit within man, Zech 12:1 so God must have formed a depraved spirit in me forcing me into a position where I am not able to obey. This is why I have said ALL Calvinists are hyper, some just don't know it.
ivdavid said:
Man did not create himself depraved, man did not choose to be born depraved, man does not form his own spirit within himself. Therefore if I am born depraved it is not my fault it was something forced upon me against my will.
In Rom 3:12 Paul said "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Paul did NOT say they are BORN out of the way or they were BORN unprofitable. How one is born and what one becomes are two different things. So man is not born a depraved sinner it is something he becomes when he chooses to sin later in life when he becomes accountable to God's law. Calvinists are wrong when they try and call man a sinner even before he sins. That's like calling a wall painted even before any paint is put on the wall.
GOd does form the spirit within man, Zech 12:1 and that spirit would be as pure as its Maker, yet man then goes about choosing to sin of his own choice and was not born depraved. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.", Eccl 7:29. So there is no such thing as total depravity, that's a man-made invention.
When God did not respect Cain's offering, Cain was angry and God said to Cain "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Gen 4:7.
God shows that it was within Cain's ability to choose to not do well or choose to do well, so Cain was not depraved where he could only choose to not do well. God even tells Cain to rule over sin which would be impossible if Cain were totally depraved.
ivdavid said:
I explained above that totally depravity is a man made invention and not in the bible so I will not go over that again.
ivdavid said:
It's not God's will that some be lost. It's God's desire that ALL (literally ALL and not some) be saved. Yet it is up to man to choose to be saved or not and it's God's wish that all would choose to be saved yet God will not force all to be saved and violate man's free will.
Eze 33:11 "Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? "
This verse mirrors the NT where it says that it's God will/desire/wish that all men come to repentance and be saved, 2 Pet 3:9. Any idea that has God willing one single person to be lost is in total opposition to what the bible says.
ivdavid said:
The phrase salvation by grace alone by faith alone is contradictory. 'Alone' is an exclusionary word, it excludes all else so if salvation were by grace alone then that excludes faith. If salvation were by faith alone then that excludes grace. So savlation is by God's grace and mans' obedient faith not either one alone
ivdavid said:
I never suggested God's grace is conditional at all times. God has unconditionlly blessed all men with physical blessings as food, water and life itself. Some were raised from the dead by grace unconditionally. But there are instances with Naaman and the blind man God made His grace conditional. Yet when it comes to salvation God has always made receiving His grace conditional.
My point with Naaman is that it shows God's grace can be and is conditional and working to keep those conditions does not detract from God's grace meaning man is trying to earn grace. God's saving grace includes conditions. So any argument that says if man has to do obedient works as believing, repenting, confessing with the mouth and submiting to baptism he is trying to earn grace is false.
ivdavid said:
God did not first open Lydia's heart unconditonally where she could then understand. If that were the case, then if God did not open my heart and left me in the dark then me being lost is God's fault for failing to open my heart/understanding.
God did not open her heart directly and apart from his word. God opened her heart indirectly by sending Paul to hear to preach the gospel to her. In verse 13 Paul says "on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted [thither]." Verse 14 says "Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]:" First, she was already a worshipper of God. Secondly, the word heard comes from akouō which means to give heed, to understand, comprehend, perceive. Lydia did NOT have to have God first act upon her in some miraculous way where she could only then understand. Again that idea will make God culpable for those that do not understand.
One commentator puts the case of Lydia thusly: "The argument Calvinists base on this passage is that God opened Lydia's heart to receive the word. She then heard it and was saved. The answer to this argument is that Calvinists have things out of order. The proper order is that Lydia began as a worshiper of God (vv. 13, 14); after she heard Paul, Silas and Timothy preaching, her heart was then opened (v. 14); and she responded and obeyed the Lord. (v. 15) It is interesting to note that Calvinists will use this passage as a proof text for Irresistible Grace but exclude reference to Lydia's baptism" by Gene Taylor
Paul told the Ephesians "Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)", Eph 3:4. Paul did NOT say when ye read ye may understand only if God or the Holy Spirit first miraculously enables you to understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
S
savedbygrace57
Guest
False teaching. Nowhere is said Jesus made Salvation available to all men ! And Christ gives Repentance/ obedience to those He saves Acts 5:31
31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.