How do Calvinists know, that they have eternal life ?

[Grubal Muruch]

I don't want to be seen as playing around semantics, which is definitely not my intention - so help me see this through -
I've quoted above what you've asked about Calvin's teachings. And the following are what you yourself have stated about your beliefs -

Grubal Muruch - "Man cannot save himself from sin."
This is the ad verbatim conclusion derived from the T - Total Depravity - as stated by you yourself in your rendition of what you've understood to be Calvin's teachings. It seems to me that you're agreeing with Calvin on this.

Grubal Muruch - "this man or any man has placed his faith in Christ and ONLY Christ (not his own abilities or works)"
"Not man's own abilities or works" seems to imply that man is not saved "based on his own merit". This lines up with your very understanding of what the U - Unconditional election is.

Grubal Muruch - "ALL of OUR sins were "nailed" on that cross."
I can't read too much into this - but does "ALL OUR sins" refer to just our past sins as of the point in time of hearing the Gospel - or does it refer to just about every single sin committed in our life on earth, past present and future?

If "All Our sins" have been nailed to the cross, what sins are the unbelievers going to be judged into condemnation for, on that final day?

On the other hand, if you do believe that all the unbelievers' sins are not effectively nailed upon the cross until such time that they repent into Christ, then that's you believing in the L - Limited Atonement.

Grubal Muruch - "the Holy Spirit by God's Grace comes to dwell within that man and seals him and he cannot lose his Salvation because he is now, "born again Spiritually" And able to go to Heaven when he dies."
I may have completely misunderstood you, but if "man cannot lose his Salvation because of God's Grace", that there sounds exactly like the P - Perseverance of the saints.

And if the above is true according to you, you have just implied that man cannot resist that Grace of God which preserves man into perseverance - and in that you have embraced the I - Irresistible Grace.


You seem to come across as one of the most ardent followers of Calvin's teachings here. And yet you keep posting against Calvinism. I am not sarcastic here - but I'm genuinely confused about where exactly your disconnect with calvinism is.

I can't read too much into this - but does "ALL OUR sins" refer to just our past sins as of the point in time of hearing the Gospel - or does it refer to just about every single sin committed in our life on earth, past present and future?

Grubal says---Christ died on the cross along with "every sin" that was ever or will ever be committed. There will be no man in Hell because of his sins. He will be there because, he rejected God's ONLY provision for Salvation. That being, Christs Atonement on the cross...

You say---If "All Our sins" have been nailed to the cross, what sins are the unbelievers going to be judged into condemnation for, on that final day?

Grubal---Those who rejected God's ONLY provision for Salvation (Christs Atonement on the cross) will stand before God with their "dead works" which the Bible says "Our rightness's are as filthy rags." which we already know are useless, before a God who excepts ONLY sinless perfection. And the unbeliever has rejected Christ and therefore, will be separated from God and go into eternal punishment.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I don't want to be seen as playing around semantics, which is definitely not my intention - so help me see this through -
I've quoted above what you've asked about Calvin's teachings. And the following are what you yourself have stated about your beliefs -

Grubal Muruch - "Man cannot save himself from sin."
This is the ad verbatim conclusion derived from the T - Total Depravity - as stated by you yourself in your rendition of what you've understood to be Calvin's teachings. It seems to me that you're agreeing with Calvin on this.

Grubal Muruch - "this man or any man has placed his faith in Christ and ONLY Christ (not his own abilities or works)"
"Not man's own abilities or works" seems to imply that man is not saved "based on his own merit". This lines up with your very understanding of what the U - Unconditional election is.

Grubal Muruch - "ALL of OUR sins were "nailed" on that cross."
I can't read too much into this - but does "ALL OUR sins" refer to just our past sins as of the point in time of hearing the Gospel - or does it refer to just about every single sin committed in our life on earth, past present and future?

If "All Our sins" have been nailed to the cross, what sins are the unbelievers going to be judged into condemnation for, on that final day?

On the other hand, if you do believe that all the unbelievers' sins are not effectively nailed upon the cross until such time that they repent into Christ, then that's you believing in the L - Limited Atonement.

Grubal Muruch - "the Holy Spirit by God's Grace comes to dwell within that man and seals him and he cannot lose his Salvation because he is now, "born again Spiritually" And able to go to Heaven when he dies."
I may have completely misunderstood you, but if "man cannot lose his Salvation because of God's Grace", that there sounds exactly like the P - Perseverance of the saints.

And if the above is true according to you, you have just implied that man cannot resist that Grace of God which preserves man into perseverance - and in that you have embraced the I - Irresistible Grace.


You seem to come across as one of the most ardent followers of Calvin's teachings here. And yet you keep posting against Calvinism. I am not sarcastic here - but I'm genuinely confused about where exactly your disconnect with calvinism is.

You say---I may have completely misunderstood you, but if "man cannot lose his Salvation because of God's Grace", that there sounds exactly like the P - Perseverance of the saints.

Grubal--- Perseverance of the saints, does that not mean that the, saint must persevere until the end ? When we are "Born-again Spiritually" it is not us who perseveres but the Spirit within helps us to persevere...

you say---And if the above is true according to you, you have just implied that man cannot resist that Grace of God which preserves man into perseverance - and in that you have embraced the I - Irresistible Grace.

Grubal---Man, through his free-will can resist the Grace of God offered. This occurs after man hears the word and will not except it. Once the man has received the Holy Spirit, at that point he will persevere because of the indwelling influence of the Spirit.

you say---You seem to come across as one of the most ardent followers of Calvin's teachings here. And yet you keep posting against Calvinism. I am not sarcastic here - but I'm genuinely confused about where exactly your disconnect with calvinism is

Grubal---Calvin basically implies man to be useless and evil and yet, God sent His Son to die for the sins of ALL humanity, an ultimate act of love and mercy. Another area of disconnection would be, free-will compared to election. These two are "major" disconnects as you can see...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

In the effort of time, let me further explain.

Man is limited by his own nature. I have free will, but that does not mean I can choose anything. I desire to fly but I am limited to the very physical nature I possess. For me to fly on my own power I'd have to be physically converted to a body that would allow me to fly.

Hold that thought.

Does God have free will? yes! But he is limited to his own nature. That's right. That's what I said.

The argument against this would be that God is all powerful and can do anything, but that's not correct in terms of how God can excersise, or would, his own free will. God is limited.

God can choose to do what is in accordance with his nature, but He cannot violate His own nature, for example: God cannot lie. God cannot stop being God. God cannot make a rock bigger than He can pick up.....ect, ect...How do I know this? Is it calvin? NO The bible.

In the same way man is limited to his own nature. the nature of man is sinful and therefore he has NOT the ability to choose God by way of his own free will since his own free will is limited to his very nature SIN. He must be converted....and we call that Born again. This is also biblical

John 3:1-7
1 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.â€
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]â€

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?†Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!â€

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’

Here are the critical errors people have with the notion of Free will.

1. That free will is independent of all things. By this is meant that a person is completely and totally free from all influences whether external or internal. This is not true. not only is it not true, it's impossible.

2. That free will will means that someone can act contrary to his own nature. Well can they? NO. I still can't fly

3. That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God. Come on! How powerful is God then? Would you really want God to leave it up to you? I wouldn't. I trust God. I do not trust me.

you say---In the same way man is limited to his own nature. the nature of man is sinful and therefore he has NOT the ability to choose God by way of his own free will since his own free will is limited to his very nature SIN. He must be converted....and we call that Born again. This is also biblical

Grubal---Man cannot be converted before he believes. He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone. Being "born again" is part of this process. Christ came to "save" sinners.

you say---Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’

Grubal---Man comes into this world by way of his or her Mother's womb (her water breaks and the baby comes into the world physically.) That's whats meant in that verse "born of water." (that's the physical sense of that verse.) Man is "Born-again Spiritually" by placing his faith in Christ, repenting and confessing his sins to Almighty God, asking that Jesus be his Lord and Saviour, and asking God to indwell/seal him with His Holy Spirit. Man is now "born-again Spiritually and is considered a new creation and a child of God...

you say---
That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God.

Grubal---God has knowledge of our free-will, after all He gave it to us. God has chosen not to control our free-will simply because, it then ceases to be free-will...

 

[glorydaz]

you say---In the same way man is limited to his own nature. the nature of man is sinful and therefore he has NOT the ability to choose God by way of his own free will since his own free will is limited to his very nature SIN. He must be converted....and we call that Born again. This is also biblical

Grubal---Man cannot be converted before he believes. He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone. Being "born again" is part of this process. Christ came to "save" sinners.

you say---Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’

Grubal---Man comes into this world by way of his or her Mother's womb (her water breaks and the baby comes into the world physically.) That's whats meant in that verse "born of water." (that's the physical sense of that verse.) Man is "Born-again Spiritually" by placing his faith in Christ, repenting and confessing his sins to Almighty God, asking that Jesus be his Lord and Saviour, and asking God to indwell/seal him with His Holy Spirit. Man is now "born-again Spiritually and is considered a new creation and a child of God...

you say---
That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God.

Grubal---God has knowledge of our free-will, after all He gave it to us. God has chosen not to control our free-will simply because, it then ceases to be free-will...

LOL I'll break into this rat pack to say, Grubal, you're standing up well. I'm not sure I've seen so much twisting and turning of the simple truths you speak in one thread for a long, long time. Just so you know, I understand completely what you're saying. It's too simple maybe.

 

[Danus]

you say---
That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God.

Grubal---God has knowledge of our free-will, after all He gave it to us. God has chosen not to control our free-will simply because, it then ceases to be free-will...

Wrong! I said Here are the critical errors people have with the notion of Free will.

1. That free will is independent of all things. By this is meant that a person is completely and totally free from all influences whether external or internal. This is not true. not only is it not true, it's impossible.

2. That free will will means that someone can act contrary to his own nature. Well can they? NO. I still can't fly

3. That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God. Come on! How powerful is God then? Would you really want God to leave it up to you? I wouldn't. I trust God. I do not trust me.

You have these same errors as evidenced in your post.

--Man cannot be converted before he believes. He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone. Being "born again" is part of this process. Christ came to "save" sinners.

Wrong again, man can not believe until he is converted. Your own words say the same thing. "He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone." You first hear then your are convicted by the spirit then you believe. God first...man does not cause this to happen.

you say---Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’

These are the words of Christ. God himself.

Grubal---Man comes into this world by way of his or her Mother's womb (her water breaks and the baby comes into the world physically.) That's whats meant in that verse "born of water." (that's the physical sense of that verse.) Man is "Born-again Spiritually" by placing his faith in Christ, repenting and confessing his sins to Almighty God, asking that Jesus be his Lord and Saviour, and asking God to indwell/seal him with His Holy Spirit. Man is now "born-again Spiritually and is considered a new creation and a child of God...

That is not quite correct. Yes he is speaking of spiritual rebirth, we all know that, but the water is speaking of purification and baptism. Has nothing to do with a woman's water breaking. Water is a cleaning thing, and that's what Christ is saying.

Listen, It's been interesting. I see no reason to continue here. I'm going to stop my involvement and just finish it with this post copied from a trusted source.

"There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation)."

http://calvinistcorner.com

GM, I'm not sure what your theology is. I assumed you where Armenian, but I don't quite think so. If you are then I don't see your treating the Armenian view very well. This is not a debatable debate with you. What you should be doing with your post is attempting to tear down the reformist view, but instead your just questioning it. That's fine if your looking for instruction, but I don't think you are. So, I'd expect you then to tear holes in the reformist view, but your not doing that either. When you state your view, it's more a mix-mesh of ideas than anything, and again it's not something that is worth arguing since your not presenting much concrete or addressing the subject well.

So, again it's been interesting. I'll catch you on another thread perhaps more light weight than your intending here. peace to you brother.

 

[jasoncran]

2

sadly some of the arminists here or those that claim that dont realise that god does hinder our actions and also the devil has influence. i may have the right to deny god but i will have to answer for that if i dont repent. thus i really dont have the freewill to deny christ. god grace merely allows me to deny him.

and i am not a calvinist as salvation can be lost.

 

[reba]

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

 

[ivdavid]

There will be no man in Hell because of his sins. He will be there because, he rejected God's ONLY provision for Salvation.

And is "rejecting God's ONLY provision for Salvation" not a sin? How exactly are you defining "sin"?

A sin is any act of transgressing any of God's commandments - it's an act of disobedience and rebellion. The Gospel commands are clear - repent and believe - and if one does not obey these, isn't that sinning before God?

Anyway, what I've written above is simply an argument. What I actually believe is that every one is condemned because of his own sins - given their love to hold on to their evil deeds that results in rejecting Christ (John 3:19-20).

Those who rejected God's ONLY provision for Salvation (Christs Atonement on the cross) will stand before God with their "dead works" which the Bible says "Our rightness's are as filthy rags." which we already know are useless, before a God who excepts ONLY sinless perfection.

Please make up your mind on this - Are these unbelievers' "dead works" sinful or not before God? If they are not, then why mention that God expects ONLY sinless perfection - according to your beliefs, I am to conclude that since every sin of every single person has been nailed to the cross, all of us - believers and unbelievers - are in an imputed state of sinless perfection before God. Why are the unbelievers condemned then? Unless of course you claim that not ALL their sins are effectively nailed to the cross - in which case, you'd simply be slipping into Limited Atonement.
( Note, I am merely trying to make sense of your beliefs - I'm not trying to stuff mine down your throat.)

Perseverance of the saints, does that not mean that the, saint must persevere until the end ? When we are "Born-again Spiritually" it is not us who perseveres but the Spirit within helps us to persevere...

If you really thought that Perseverance of the saints were about what man did and not about what God did in man - then you'll have to read up more on TULIP. What you believe is exactly what's claimed in the Perseverance of the saints. The Spirit is who causes us to walk in God's ways unto salvation(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). So you see, you actually do believe in Perseverance too.

Man, through his free-will can resist the Grace of God offered. This occurs after man hears the word and will not except it. Once the man has received the Holy Spirit, at that point he will persevere because of the indwelling influence of the Spirit.

Let me get this straight - you believe that God's grace becomes irresistible once a man becomes a believer, but not before? Isn't that inconsistent, an attribute not associated with God? Either God's grace is resistible or it's not, which would you go with?

Given that you believe in the Perseverance of the saints by the Spirit - you're essentially saying that God's grace preserves man unto salvation without failing - which means that man cannot resist such grace that preserves him unto the end. Let me put it this way - can any converted man fall away from God when God is preserving him? If your answer to this is NO, that is the P and the I there.

Funny, but are you implying that man has no 'freewill'(as you use the term), after he is converted? I mean, can man make the choice of rejecting Christ after he has the indwelling Spirit? Because if he can reject, then God does not preserve him unto the end. And if he can't reject, that's not a "freewill", right?

Calvin basically implies man to be useless and evil and yet, God sent His Son to die for the sins of ALL humanity, an ultimate act of love and mercy.

I think it was Danus who asked you the connection between man being evil and God's love and mercy for him. I find it hard to get a grasp on what you believe, because you seem to hold on to so many contradictory beliefs at a time by applying various definitions of the same words, as you see fit.

For instance, you just said ALL the unbelievers' works are "dead works" and hence useless. Why then complain about Calvin calling man useless?

And besides, God's love is indeed unconditional. Why are you implying otherwise? And by definition itself, mercy is not dependent upon the person receiving mercy. So what's your point here?

Also consider Eze 36:22, Rom 9:15 to see it's dependent on God's will and His will alone.

And didn't you yourself say that man is not saved based on his own merit - the U in TULIP?

And didn't you yourself agree that man cannot save himself from sin - agreeing with the conclusion of Total depravity? If man is under sin - as Rom 3:9 and the subsequent verses affirm - why will you not call man in the flesh evil (him being an enemy of God)? Consider Romans 5:6-8 in this context please.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Wrong. He defines what that free will is based solely on the biblical teaching of what in fact free will is.

Calvin declares that certain people were chosen before the foundation of the world to be one of the elect. Therefore, man by Calvin's declaration, has no "free-will" to choose. God has already chose whom He would save. That would not be considered "free-will," for man had no choice in the matter...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

Wrong! I said Here are the critical errors people have with the notion of Free will.

1. That free will is independent of all things. By this is meant that a person is completely and totally free from all influences whether external or internal. This is not true. not only is it not true, it's impossible.

2. That free will will means that someone can act contrary to his own nature. Well can they? NO. I still can't fly

3. That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God. Come on! How powerful is God then? Would you really want God to leave it up to you? I wouldn't. I trust God. I do not trust me.

You have these same errors as evidenced in your post.



Wrong again, man can not believe until he is converted. Your own words say the same thing. "He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone." You first hear then your are convicted by the spirit then you believe. God first...man does not cause this to happen.


These are the words of Christ. God himself.

That is not quite correct. Yes he is speaking of spiritual rebirth, we all know that, but the water is speaking of purification and baptism. Has nothing to do with a woman's water breaking. Water is a cleaning thing, and that's what Christ is saying.

Listen, It's been interesting. I see no reason to continue here. I'm going to stop my involvement and just finish it with this post copied from a trusted source.

"There are two mains camps of theology within Christianity in America today: Arminianism and Calvinism. Calvinism is a system of biblical interpretation taught by John Calvin. Calvin lived in France in the 1500's at the time of Martin Luther who sparked the Reformation.

The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation.

Arminianism, on the other hand, maintains that God predestined, but not in an absolute sense. Rather, He looked into the future to see who would pick him and then He chose them. Jesus died for all peoples' sins who have ever lived and ever will live, not just the Christians. Each person is the one who decides if he wants to be saved or not. And finally, it is possible to lose your salvation (some arminians believe you cannot lose your salvation)."

http://calvinistcorner.com

GM, I'm not sure what your theology is. I assumed you where Armenian, but I don't quite think so. If you are then I don't see your treating the Armenian view very well. This is not a debatable debate with you. What you should be doing with your post is attempting to tear down the reformist view, but instead your just questioning it. That's fine if your looking for instruction, but I don't think you are. So, I'd expect you then to tear holes in the reformist view, but your not doing that either. When you state your view, it's more a mix-mesh of ideas than anything, and again it's not something that is worth arguing since your not presenting much concrete or addressing the subject well.

So, again it's been interesting. I'll catch you on another thread perhaps more light weight than your intending here. peace to you brother.

You say---1. That free will is independent of all things. By this is meant that a person is completely and totally free from all influences whether external or internal. This is not true. not only is it not true, it's impossible.

Grubal---With God ALL things are possible. We come to God with our full sinful nature intact, (influences and all) However, with the Holy Spirits conviction on our hearts, He is able to use the truth of God's Word (The Bible) to lead us through the Salvation process. Which includes are initial faith. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

you say---2. That free will means that someone can act contrary to his own nature. Well can they? NO. I still can't fly

Grubal---Since God gave every member of humanity the "free-will" to choose, it's not against man's nature. It in fact, is. within the confines of every human being, to choose if they will except or deny God's Grace. Remember it's a free gift of God. (Grace)

you say---3. That free will is something within man that is independent of God; that it is, completely man’s and not under the soverign knowledge and control of God. Come on! How powerful is God then? Would you really want God to leave it up to you? I wouldn't. I trust God. I do not trust me.

Grubal---As I said before, God has the "knowledge" of our "free-will," after all, He created us that way. He chose "NOT" to be in control of it however. He has left it up to us to choose. He gets ALL the praise for creating us with a "free-will." Personally, I would rather have a choice, than to be a robot or puppet...

you say---Wrong again, man can not believe until he is converted. Your own words say the same thing. "He hears the Word of his Salvation then with the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, man is able to place his faith in Christ and Christ alone." You first hear then your are convicted by the spirit then you believe. God first...man does not cause this to happen.

Grubal---Man believes first, then converted, that's the order of things. (Without faith it is impossible to please Him) Man first hears the word of his Salvation. Then the Spirit uses that word to convict. Then man accepts or rejects that word. If man places his faith in Christ alone, "THEN" conversion takes place...That's the order of things...It's not, conversion first then faith, it's faith before conversion, there's a huge difference...

I just want to let you know, that I, not only do not adhere to the teachings of Calvin, I also disagree with, Jacobus Arminius.

You say--- When you state your view, it's more a mix-mesh of ideas than anything, and again it's not something that is worth arguing since your not presenting much concrete or addressing the subject well

I appreciate your intellectual appraisal of my inability to articulate in a worthy debate. Please excuse my ineptness in creating a more robust discussion.

 

[ivdavid]

We come to God with our full sinful nature intact, (influences and all)

I'm not sure how you meant this - but our "intact sinful nature" will not permit us to come to God. Which is precisely why we need to be regenerated to see and hear God's Word. What is the purpose of regeneration or creating a new nature in man by God, if the old nature itself suffices for all spiritual purposes?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Quite obviously, not everybody has the spiritual 'ears' to hear and hence such will not have faith. The regenerative work of God is what gives people these spiritual ears to hear - thereby faith too being of God and not of ourselves.

Then the Spirit uses that word to convict. Then man accepts or rejects that word.

Let's look at the sequence of events. Let's say the Spirit is not yet at work in a particular person - can this man accept the Word of God - yes/no? Given what you've said so far, I'm inclined to believe you'd say NO.

Then I'd ask - why cannot this man ever accept the Word of God by himself? The answer quite obviously is that sin in his flesh enslaves him into corruption of the Word through deceiving and blinding his mind - would you agree so far?

Now, given that man by himself will always reject the Word of God - does that imply any freewill at this point in time? Seems not - since his will seems to be continually enslaved to the sinful counsel of sin to always reject God's Word.

Note, if you have any objections to what I've stated so far, you'll be implying that man by himself can accept God's word and that, you'll need to validate separately.

I guess I've made my point already but anyway, given all this so far, we can see the necessity of God to free this man from his enslavement - for him to accept His Word. Now, again note, either God frees him effectively from this enslavement to sin - or he is still under such enslavement to sin. Here's the dilemma - in his enslavement to sin, this man will always choose to reject God's Word. But to make him accept God's Word, God has to override this man's choice - is that permissible under freewill?

I mean, shouldn't God first ask man's choice of whether he wants to be freed from sin's enslavement - and the catch 22 here being that man is under sin's enslavement when God is supposed to ask this - and hence, his expected answer would be NO. In that case, for God to even get this man to a sense of reality and truth, apart from sin's deceptions, God has to override man's choice - thereby nullifying the concept of freewill. This overriding is what happens in the regenerative work of God - where He takes out the heart of stone in man and puts in a new heart of flesh - that is now able to love God in spirit and in truth.

Again note, absence of "freewill" does not imply "no will" as in puppets/robots - it simply implies a "dependent will".

This is how I see things - I'd really like you to help clarify the apparent contradictions I see in your belief system in as unambiguous a manner as possible. Thank you.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

And is "rejecting God's ONLY provision for Salvation" not a sin? How exactly are you defining "sin"?

A sin is any act of transgressing any of God's commandments - it's an act of disobedience and rebellion. The Gospel commands are clear - repent and believe - and if one does not obey these, isn't that sinning before God?

Anyway, what I've written above is simply an argument. What I actually believe is that every one is condemned because of his own sins - given their love to hold on to their evil deeds that results in rejecting Christ (John 3:19-20).


Please make up your mind on this - Are these unbelievers' "dead works" sinful or not before God? If they are not, then why mention that God expects ONLY sinless perfection - according to your beliefs, I am to conclude that since every sin of every single person has been nailed to the cross, all of us - believers and unbelievers - are in an imputed state of sinless perfection before God. Why are the unbelievers condemned then? Unless of course you claim that not ALL their sins are effectively nailed to the cross - in which case, you'd simply be slipping into Limited Atonement.
( Note, I am merely trying to make sense of your beliefs - I'm not trying to stuff mine down your throat.)


If you really thought that Perseverance of the saints were about what man did and not about what God did in man - then you'll have to read up more on TULIP. What you believe is exactly what's claimed in the Perseverance of the saints. The Spirit is who causes us to walk in God's ways unto salvation(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). So you see, you actually do believe in Perseverance too.


Let me get this straight - you believe that God's grace becomes irresistible once a man becomes a believer, but not before? Isn't that inconsistent, an attribute not associated with God? Either God's grace is resistible or it's not, which would you go with?

Given that you believe in the Perseverance of the saints by the Spirit - you're essentially saying that God's grace preserves man unto salvation without failing - which means that man cannot resist such grace that preserves him unto the end. Let me put it this way - can any converted man fall away from God when God is preserving him? If your answer to this is NO, that is the P and the I there.

Funny, but are you implying that man has no 'freewill'(as you use the term), after he is converted? I mean, can man make the choice of rejecting Christ after he has the indwelling Spirit? Because if he can reject, then God does not preserve him unto the end. And if he can't reject, that's not a "freewill", right?


I think it was Danus who asked you the connection between man being evil and God's love and mercy for him. I find it hard to get a grasp on what you believe, because you seem to hold on to so many contradictory beliefs at a time by applying various definitions of the same words, as you see fit.

For instance, you just said ALL the unbelievers' works are "dead works" and hence useless. Why then complain about Calvin calling man useless?

And besides, God's love is indeed unconditional. Why are you implying otherwise? And by definition itself, mercy is not dependent upon the person receiving mercy. So what's your point here?

Also consider Eze 36:22, Rom 9:15 to see it's dependent on God's will and His will alone.

And didn't you yourself say that man is not saved based on his own merit - the U in TULIP?

And didn't you yourself agree that man cannot save himself from sin - agreeing with the conclusion of Total depravity? If man is under sin - as Rom 3:9 and the subsequent verses affirm - why will you not call man in the flesh evil (him being an enemy of God)? Consider Romans 5:6-8 in this context please.

you said---And is "rejecting God's ONLY provision for Salvation" not a sin? How exactly are you defining "sin"?

Grubal---ALL sins are forgiven of men. But, rejecting God's only "provision" for forgiveness and mercy through His Son's Atonement on the cross, is unacceptable before God, and calls for that person to be separated from God and put in a place of torment where he will abide for eternity. Sin was taken care of at the cross. But, rejecting Christ's sacrifice for our sins is not provided for, Jesus said, (John14:6) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Therefore, if we try and come to God, any other way than Christ, there will be NO provision for us, other than, separation from God for eternity... And that comes from our "wrong choice."

you said---A sin is any act of transgressing any of God's commandments - it's an act of disobedience and rebellion. The Gospel commands are clear - repent and believe - and if one does not obey these, isn't that sinning before God

Grubal---One must put their faith in Christ, this is part of the "provision" of Gods' forgiveness and mercy. To do otherwise, is to not be covered by God's provision. As I said before, the sin question was taken care of at the cross. A person either chooses to put his faith in Christ or reject Him and His work on the cross and be separated from God for eternity...

you said---Anyway, what I've written above is simply an argument. What I actually believe is that every one is condemned because of his own sins - given their love to hold on to their evil deeds that results in rejecting Christ (John 3:19-20).

Grubal---We came into this world a sinner (from Adam) It's not our sins that holds us back from God's forgiveness and mercy, it's our lack of putting our faith in Christ that results in rejecting God's offer of Salvation...

you said---Please make up your mind on this - Are these unbelievers' "dead works" sinful or not before God? If they are not, then why mention that God expects ONLY sinless perfection - according to your beliefs, I am to conclude that since every sin of every single person has been nailed to the cross, all of us - believers and unbelievers - are in an imputed state of sinless perfection before God. Why are the unbelievers condemned then? Unless of course you claim that not ALL their sins are effectively nailed to the cross - in which case, you'd simply be slipping into Limited Atonement.
( Note, I am merely trying to make sense of your beliefs - I'm not trying to stuff mine down your throat.)

Grubal---The "dead works" of which I have spoken of on occasion, are the worldly, "good" works that are done in the flesh. Not to be mistaken with, the sinful "bad" done in the flesh. (Isaiah 64:6) says, " But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Before conversion are worldly good works are dead works of no "Spiritual" good.

If we try and come before God with only our "good Works" and without Christ, then God would expect "sinless perfection" from us, for that's the only way we can come before Him. Which obviously, we can't. But through Christ we can come before God, because Christ is "sinless" and also paid for our sins. So if we are "in Christ" with regards to regeneration, then we are, accepted by God, through His Son.

you said---according to your beliefs, I am to conclude that since every sin of every single person has been nailed to the cross, all of us - believers and unbelievers - are in an imputed state of sinless perfection before God. Why are the unbelievers condemned then? Unless of course you claim that not ALL their sins are effectively nailed to the cross - in which case, you'd simply be slipping into Limited Atonement.

Grubal---Christ paid the price for the sins of the world. Therefore, ANYONE who comes to Christ in faith and been "born-again Spiritually" will spend eternity with God. Those unbelievers who choose not to come to Christ, but choose another way, such as, doing good works, maybe even going to church every Sunday, or choose to believe in any other thing than Christ, will be separated from God and not be allowed into Heaven. Remember Christ said," I am the the truth and the life, etc."

you said---If you really thought that Perseverance of the saints were about what man did and not about what God did in man - then you'll have to read up more on TULIP. What you believe is exactly what's claimed in the Perseverance of the saints. The Spirit is who causes us to walk in God's ways unto salvation(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). So you see, you actually do believe in Perseverance too.

Grubal---Not if that "perseverance" is self motivated to insure our continued Salvation.

you said---Let me get this straight - you believe that God's grace becomes irresistible once a man becomes a believer, but not before? Isn't that inconsistent, an attribute not associated with God? Either God's grace is resistible or it's not, which would you go with?

Grubal---We always have our God given "free-will" to take into consideration. God's provision for our forgiveness, mercy, righteousness, eternal destiny, rests upon what Christ did on the cross, our faith placed in Christ, plays an integral part in the process. The Holy Spirit uses the Word (Bible) to convict us of sin and righteousness. Remember, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." If your coming from a Calvinist view, then "irresistible grace" means that, God,from before the foundation of the world, "choose" the elect. And that particular group cannot resist this kind of grace. But this is not the Grace of which I adhere too.

you said---
Given that you believe in the Perseverance of the saints by the Spirit - you're essentially saying that God's grace preserves man unto salvation without failing - which means that man cannot resist such grace that preserves him unto the end. Let me put it this way - can any converted man fall away from God when God is preserving him? If your answer to this is NO, that is the P and the I there.

Grubal---In 1 John 64:6 it states, "These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may "KNOW" that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God. Once a person is "born-again Spiritually" he is sealed and indwelt by the Spirit of God. No one can "take away" this arrangement. He is "in Christ" But, it begins with hearing the word of Salvation, then placing one's faith in Christ, then the indwelling/sealing of the Holy Spirit. He is now "SPIRITUALLY" born. And has the influence of the indwelt Spirit of God...

you said---Funny, but are you implying that man has no 'freewill'(as you use the term), after he is converted? I mean, can man make the choice of rejecting Christ after he has the indwelling Spirit? Because if he can reject, then God does not preserve him unto the end. And if he can't reject, that's not a "freewill", right?

Grubal---We are created with a "free-will" to choose what and where we will place our faith. Religion? riches? good works? etc. Once we have chosen to place our faith in Christ, through hearing the word and the conviction of the Spirit, and have become "born-again Spiritually" 2 Corinthians 5:17 says,"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." Such a man will not lose his Salvation, he's solid...He does not wish to go back to being lost...

you said---I think it was Danus who asked you the connection between man being evil and God's love and mercy for him. I find it hard to get a grasp on what you believe, because you seem to hold on to so many contradictory beliefs at a time by applying various definitions of the same words, as you see fit.

Grubal---Please give me some examples of, contradictory beliefs ? Also, what various definitions to the same words have I used ? Lets see if they truly are contradictions or perhaps you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey. In order for me to check these, I'll need your examples OK ? That's only fair, if your going to question the validity of my answers...Thanks.

you said---For instance, you just said ALL the unbelievers' works are "dead works" and hence useless. Why then complain about Calvin calling man useless?

Grubal---By stating that ALL unbelievers "worldly good works are dead, and of no Spiritual significance" IS a truthful statement. By Calvin saying, (as you put it) man is useless, this is not a true statement. The fact is, we can see what God feels about man, just reading John 3:16--- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." God see's man as having worth enough to send His Son to die on a cross for their sins.

Calvin see's NO worth in man, but God does...

you said---And besides, God's love is indeed unconditional. Why are you implying otherwise? And by definition itself, mercy is not dependent upon the person receiving mercy. So what's your point here?

Grubal---God's love is "unconditional" We know this because Christ died for ALL of the "ungodly sinners" on earth which includes you and I. But, how we receive this free gift is predicated on our hearing the word, believing the word and being born-again Spiritually.

you said--- Also consider Eze 36:22, Rom 9:15 to see it's dependent on God's will and His will alone.

Grubal--- Christ came to die on the cross,for ALL men, not just the elect spoken about by Calvin.

you said--- And didn't you yourself say that man is not saved based on his own merit - the U in TULIP?

Grubal---Unbelievers "works" will not save him. Christ DID ALL the work on the cross. God requires us to put our trust (faith) in this very fact...I may believe something that someone else did, but that doesn't mean I played a part in what that other person did, does it ? (just a little analogy)

you said---And didn't you yourself agree that man cannot save himself from sin - agreeing with the conclusion of Total depravity? If man is under sin - as Rom 3:9 and the subsequent verses affirm - why will you not call man in the flesh evil (him being an enemy of God)? Consider Romans 5:6-8 in this context please.[/QUOTE]

Grubal---Again, man cannot save himself from sin. Only through God's Grace (Christ included) is it possible. Man is capable of doing good and evil. Although when the unbelieving man does a good act, it is considered a "dead work" because it does not bring glory to God. Romans 5:6-8 speaks of Christ dying for the "ungodly" (that's ALL of us) and that God demonstrated His Love towards mankind by sending His Son. God new we were sinners without a Saviour and He provided one, by sending His Son. That can only be an act of great love,that God bestowed upon us sinners.

Grace+faith+nothing. A great formula, from a Loving Creator...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

In your defense, many of these threads have Calvinism injected into them by Calvinists. Some to such a degree that the topic itself gets overlooked. I would encourage you, brother, as I see no dabbling in personal attacks in your posts.

Thanks, my friend...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

LOL I'll break into this rat pack to say, Grubal, you're standing up well. I'm not sure I've seen so much twisting and turning of the simple truths you speak in one thread for a long, long time. Just so you know, I understand completely what you're saying. It's too simple maybe.

Simple, is where it's at...

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I'm not sure how you meant this - but our "intact sinful nature" will not permit us to come to God. Which is precisely why we need to be regenerated to see and hear God's Word. What is the purpose of regeneration or creating a new nature in man by God, if the old nature itself suffices for all spiritual purposes?


"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Quite obviously, not everybody has the spiritual 'ears' to hear and hence such will not have faith. The regenerative work of God is what gives people these spiritual ears to hear - thereby faith too being of God and not of ourselves.


- yes/no? GiveLet's look at the sequence of events. Let's say the Spirit is not yet at work in a particular person - can this man accept the Word of Godn what you've said so far, I'm inclined to believe you'd say NO.

Then I'd ask - why cannot this man ever accept the Word of God by himself? The answer quite obviously is that sin in his flesh enslaves him into corruption of the Word through deceiving and blinding his mind - would you agree so far?

Now, given that man by himself will always reject the Word of God - does that imply any freewill at this point in time? Seems not - since his will seems to be continually enslaved to the sinful counsel of sin to always reject God's Word.

Note, if you have any objections to what I've stated so far, you'll be implying that man by himself can accept God's word and that, you'll need to validate separately.

I guess I've made my point already but anyway, given all this so far, we can see the necessity of God to free this man from his enslavement - for him to accept His Word. Now, again note, either God frees him effectively from this enslavement to sin - or he is still under such enslavement to sin. Here's the dilemma - in his enslavement to sin, this man will always choose to reject God's Word. But to make him accept God's Word, God has to override this man's choice - is that permissible under freewill?

I mean, shouldn't God first ask man's choice of whether he wants to be freed from sin's enslavement - and the catch 22 here being that man is under sin's enslavement when God is supposed to ask this - and hence, his expected answer would be NO. In that case, for God to even get this man to a sense of reality and truth, apart from sin's deceptions, God has to override man's choice - thereby nullifying the concept of freewill. This overriding is what happens in the regenerative work of God - where He takes out the heart of stone in man and puts in a new heart of flesh - that is now able to love God in spirit and in truth.

Again note, absence of "freewill" does not imply "no will" as in puppets/robots - it simply implies a "dependent will".

This is how I see things - I'd really like you to help clarify the apparent contradictions I see in your belief system in as unambiguous a manner as possible. Thank you.

you said---I'm not sure how you meant this - but our "intact sinful nature" will not permit us to come to God. Which is precisely why we need to be regenerated to see and hear God's Word. What is the purpose of regeneration or creating a new nature in man by God, if the old nature itself suffices for all spiritual purposes?

Grubal---We MUST come to God as a sinner. To do otherwise, is to put the cart before the horse. No one implies, that the unregenerate man is capable of fulfilling spiritual purposes. That would be absurd. When a man comes to Christ, he comes as a sinner. A sinner who has heard the word of his Salvation. The Spirit works on that man's heart by conviction of sin etc. next that man must decide if he'll place his faith in Christ and Him alone or reject the message. Besides you said, " Which is precisely why we need to be regenerated to see and hear God's Word" I ask you,how can a man be regenerated before he even hears about God's Grace as presented in the Bible ?

you said---"He who has ears to hear, let him hear." - Quite obviously, not everybody has the spiritual 'ears' to hear and hence such will not have faith. The regenerative work of God is what gives people these spiritual ears to hear - thereby faith too being of God and not of ourselves.

Grubal---No, we first hear about God's mercy and forgiveness through Christ from the Bible, and the work of the Holy Spirit convicts our hearts etc. and then our faith must be placed in Christ or not. God wants ALL to come to a saving knowledge of His Son. Romans 10:14 says,"How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

you said---yes/no? Let's look at the sequence of events. Let's say the Spirit is not yet at work in a particular person - can this man accept the Word of God what you've said so far, I'm inclined to believe you'd say NO.

Grubal---No, you guessed right...The word must be presented first (Romans 10:14--How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?) The Spirit works through the word and convicts the unbeliever, and so on.

you said---Then I'd ask - why cannot this man ever accept the Word of God by himself? The answer quite obviously is that sin in his flesh enslaves him into corruption of the Word through deceiving and blinding his mind - would you agree so far?

Grubal---He must first hear the word, the word in combination with the Spirit convicts and the man chooses to believe or not...Unless he hears about God's Grace first, he's not in a position to make a decision until that time.

you said---Now, given that man by himself will always reject the Word of God - does that imply any freewill at this point in time? Seems not - since his will seems to be continually enslaved to the sinful counsel of sin to always reject God's Word.

Grubal--- You've taken the hearing of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit out of the equation. If man never hears about God's Grace (this probably will not happen in today's world communication system) but let's, just for the sake of argument, say we have a guy that never hears the word, doesn't know what the Bible is, I can only guess, that, maybe God would judge him according to the man's conscience or just from the idea that he can look around his world and see that something had to create it and perhaps he would decide to live accordingly. As you can see, once you take the word and the Spirit out of the equation, your stuck with speculative hypothesis, and that's only relative to the imagination of the inquiring mind.

you said---Again note, absence of "freewill" does not imply "no will" as in puppets/robots - it simply implies a "dependent will".

Grubal---If free-will is "dependent" on another source for guidance in what to do in any given situation, then it ceases to be "free-will...And becomes dependent upon the source which controls the ultimate choice...

you say--- in his enslavement to sin, this man will always choose to reject God's Word.

Grubal---Only if we remove the word and the inspiration of the Spirit...

you say--- God has to override this man's choice - is that permissible under freewill?

Grubal---Again, if God "overrides" man's free-will then it no longer remains man's choice, and that's not what God intended...

you say--- I mean, shouldn't God first ask man's choice of whether he wants to be freed from sin's enslavement - and the catch 22 here being that man is under sin's enslavement when God is supposed to ask this - and hence, his expected answer would be NO. In that case, for God to even get this man to a sense of reality and truth, apart from sin's deceptions, God has to override man's choice - thereby nullifying the concept of freewill. This overriding is what happens in the regenerative work of God - where He takes out the heart of stone in man and puts in a new heart of flesh - that is now able to love God in spirit and in truth.

Grubal---I'll only add an observation to this last few sentences you've posted. And that is, you seem to have taken out the influence that the Holy Spirit plays in bringing a person to Christ plus the obvious part the person must play and you've convoluted some of the "history of events" that occur during the Salvation process. I realize your coming from a Calvinist viewpoint and therefore perceive things differently so, I can't fault you for that. Anyway, get back with me when you can and will chat some more...

 

[ivdavid]

One must put their faith in Christ, this is part of the "provision" of Gods' forgiveness and mercy. To do otherwise, is to not be covered by God's provision.

I'm going to focus on just what you've said here, for the moment. What I am able to understand from the above quote is that - those who do not put their faith in Christ, will not be covered by the provision of God's forgiveness and mercy. So those who remain unbelievers till the final day, do not have their sins effectively forgiven - right? Is that not Limited Atonement - that only the believers' sins are effectively forgiven by the death of Christ on the cross?

It's not our sins that holds us back from God's forgiveness and mercy...

This seems like a deviation from what we're discussing. I'm discussing about the state of an unbeliever on the final day before God - does such a one have all his sins forgiven or not? If all his sins are effectively forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice, even though he's remained an unbeliever, then what does he receive condemnation for? On the other hand, if his sins are not effectively forgiven because he has not put his faith in Christ, then not all of everyone's sins are effectively forgiven - which is what limited atonement says. This seems quite obvious to me and I see nothing controversial in this from a Christian perspective - why is there so much disagreement on this?

The "dead works" of which I have spoken of on occasion, are the worldly, "good" works that are done in the flesh. Not to be mistaken with, the sinful "bad" done in the flesh.

You're right - I inferred wrongly here. My point however is still unanswered by this -

If we try and come before God with only our "good Works" and without Christ, then God would expect "sinless perfection" from us, for that's the only way we can come before Him. Which obviously, we can't.

You're saying that those who haven't put their faith in Christ, are expected to have sinless perfection, which they don't - implying that they are still going to die in their sins. And yet you say every sin of everyone has been effectively nailed to the cross. Shouldn't we bring forth fruit meet for repentance for the washing away of our sins? You seem to imply that everyone's sins have been washed away already - and simultaneously say that they will not receive the provision of forgiveness unless they believe into Christ. That does seem contradictory to me. Perhaps I've misunderstood and I need you to clarify it.

 

[Grubal Muruch]

I'm going to focus on just what you've said here, for the moment. What I am able to understand from the above quote is that - those who do not put their faith in Christ, will not be covered by the provision of God's forgiveness and mercy. So those who remain unbelievers till the final day, do not have their sins effectively forgiven - right? Is that not Limited Atonement - that only the believers' sins are effectively forgiven by the death of Christ on the cross?


This seems like a deviation from what we're discussing. I'm discussing about the state of an unbeliever on the final day before God - does such a one have all his sins forgiven or not? If all his sins are effectively forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice, even though he's remained an unbeliever, then what does he receive condemnation for? On the other hand, if his sins are not effectively forgiven because he has not put his faith in Christ, then not all of everyone's sins are effectively forgiven - which is what limited atonement says. This seems quite obvious to me and I see nothing controversial in this from a Christian perspective - why is there so much disagreement on this?


You're right - I inferred wrongly here. My point however is still unanswered by this -

You said---You're saying that those who haven't put their faith in Christ, are expected to have sinless perfection, which they don't - implying that they are still going to die in their sins. And yet you say every sin of everyone has been effectively nailed to the cross. Shouldn't we bring forth fruit meet for repentance for the washing away of our sins? You seem to imply that everyone's sins have been washed away already - and simultaneously say that they will not receive the provision of forgiveness unless they believe into Christ. That does seem contradictory to me. Perhaps I've misunderstood and I need you to clarify it.

Grubal---Those who remain until death without receiving Christ, will stand before the judgement seat and be judged by their works alone. And as we know, those are "dead works" done in the flesh. (Revelation 20:12-15)---And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

These are sobering verses of Scripture. The sin question was taken care of at the cross (Christ paid for every last sin held accountable to mankind) Now we see in Revelation, that the "unbelievers" are judged ONLY according to their works (which are considered dead works of no Spiritual value) Because they didn't choose to follow Christ, you see the outcome...


you said-----I'm going to focus on just what you've said here, for the moment. What I am able to understand from the above quote is that - those who do not put their faith in Christ, will not be covered by the provision of God's forgiveness and mercy. So those who remain unbelievers till the final day, do not have their sins effectively forgiven - right? Is that not Limited Atonement - that only the believers' sins are effectively forgiven by the death of Christ on the cross?

Grubal----God has made the "provision" for the forgiveness of every sin, for every human being. But, as we see,unbelievers are NOT judged according to their sin ( because sin was taken care of at the cross) but, according to their "WORKS."

 

[ivdavid]

Grubal Muruch,

I find it in the best interests of our discussion for you to first give working definitions of what you mean by -

a) sins
b) works
c) good
d) bad
e) forgiveness

Thank You.

 

[ivdavid]

unbelievers are NOT judged according to their sin

Can one be condemned if they have no sins imputed to them? A simple and direct question to which a simple and direct answer would suffice.


And what does the phrase, "die in your sins" mean here?
Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
If all the sins of every man, unbeliever too, are already effectively forgiven, what sins are these unbelievers going to die in?

 

[ivdavid]

The Spirit is who causes us to walk in God's ways unto salvation(Eze 36:27, Php 2:13). So you see, you actually do believe in Perseverance too.

Not if that "perseverance" is self motivated to insure our continued Salvation.

Didn't quite get you there? Are you saying that calvinism teaches that perseverance is of man's initiative and effort and that such a teaching is wrong - if so, let me assure you, calvinism never attributes anything to man's own initiative or effort. On the other hand, if you're saying that calvinism does not attribute perseverance to man's own initiative,effort and that that's what you believe is the case, then isn't that man preserving himself instead of God preserving him?