The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[ivdavid]

I use regeneration, salvation and justification interchangeably, I see no reason to view the three as professing different doctrines unless you are willing to describe how this is.

Salvation : to be saved from death unto eternal life.
Justification : To be rendered righteous.
Regeneration : To be made anew - a new heart, a new spirit, a new birth.

Case 1: God saves people through justification by faith in Christ - but as they are in the flesh, without making them a new creature in the spirit. This throws an impossibility because the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom, being condemned for sin in it (Rom 8:3).
Case 2: God saves people after regenerating them - but not through justification by faith in Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the world. This is yet another impossibility for it makes God to be unjust when He justifies people by simply overlooking/ignoring their sins(Rom 3:26).
Case 3: God regenerates people and justifies them in Christ - but does not save them. An impossibility, since God would be unjust to condemn those who're rendered righteous.
Case 4: God first saves people into the Kingdom of God - and then regenerates and justifies them. Impossible - regeneration must precede salvation since the flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and justification must precede salvation for until the atonement is applied, people will die in their sins.

From the first 3 cases, I seek to establish the distinction between the three concepts - and why they have to go together. In Case 4, I seek to show that these concepts do follow an order of sequence, with Salvation necessarily being the final step.

We also know, similarly, that justification and faith are distinct concepts - for in one case, one may be justified by the law while in another case, he may be justified by faith. And we know that that with which you are justified must necessarily precede the justification itself - hence faith must precede justification.

And we know that John's baptism/ministry of repentance preceded faith in Christ(Acts 19:1-5). And that's where I posit that for a person to repent, he must have his stony heart removed lest he simply harden it more against God - thereby requiring the newness be made in him for him to be enabled to repent and believe. That's how I arrive at regeneration preceding repentance and faith.

Now - regeneration, repentance, faith are what man ought to do(Eze 18:31, Mark 1:15) - while God responds with justification, adoption, sanctification and preserving in the promised Holy Spirit...right unto salvation.

God commands, exhorts and pleads with man to fulfill his part and promises the rest upon that. Not one obeys - no, not even the elect - for all are hardened in their hearts and rebel against God in sinful flesh.

God, at this point, is perfectly Righteous to condemn one and all as per His Just wrath - for even the elect fall under this predicament (Eph 2:3). But therein,
Rom 9:29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
Rom 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

God, before the foundation of the world, and before any had done any good or evil(Rom 9:11), reserved for Himself the elect whom He vowed to have His everlasting mercy upon, lest they fall as Sodom - therein predetermining to successfully fulfill His purpose to have a people for Himself. And to this end, He kickstarts the salvation process by regenerating the elect, out of His mercy. He does this not for their sake, for they are a stiffnecked and rebellious people too(Deut 9:4,6), but for His own Holy Name's sake(Eze 36:22). And it is this regenerated newness that makes the Gospel call seem new - while it is the selfsame Gospel call preached earlier to their hardened hearts. The difference is in them, not in the calling. This triggers the domino effect of the now renewed creature to willingly repent and believe in Christ to which God responds as promised.

Note, God's promises are to all, not based on whether they're elect or non-elect - if any will put in themselves a new heart and a new spirit(by seeking and asking God) and consequently repent and believe, God will deal with them the exact same way. But alas, none seek God - all are gone out of the way and are unprofitable - each walking according to their own sinful flesh. How then is God not justified in extending His mercy to the elect - for He will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy(Rom 9:15).

Therefore, it is true that God offers salvation to all, and yet only the elect are saved. It is true that man cannot but sin in the flesh, and yet man is held responsible for his sins. It is true that everyone is held responsible for their sins, and yet only the elect have their sins atoned. It is true that man is commanded to repent and believe and that eventually it is he who does so, and yet salvation is monergistic.

Whew. Need to catch my breath.

 

[ivdavid]

Was this a true or false statement? Is it possible for reprobate sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved?

"Possible" in what sense?
Are you asking if God has indeed extended an opportunity to all reprobate sinners, without exception, to believe and be saved - then, the answer is a resounding Yes. John 3:16.
Or are you asking if the reprobate sinner in the flesh can make use of this above opportunity extended by God - the answer is a big No. Sin in the flesh does not permit him to. Rom 8:7. Which is why one has to be regenerated in the spirit to overcome the rebellious flesh - which work we've received by God's mercy.

He stated that "Contrary to the claims of extreme Calvinists, there are no verses properly understood that teach regeneration is prior to faith. Instead, it is the uniform pattern of Scripture to place faith logically prior to salvation as a condition for receiving it

Why interchange Regeneration with Salvation - the two are distinct concepts in my mind. A is not before B because B is before C ?

Therefore, we can conclude that regeneration refers to:
receiving salvation ... 'he saved us' (Titus 3:5 ESV);
So, salvation and regeneration happen at the same time, based on this verse.

What is meant by "same time" here? Is it that you are measuring the physical time difference between 2 distinct events here - or are you saying that they're not 2 distinct events but one and the same, with one describing the other? If the latter, I disagree based on what I've written in my previous post.
If I say -
1) I cooked lunch, by steaming the vegetables.
2) I cooked lunch, by reading an online recipe.

If you hold on to position 1, then yes, since steaming describes/refers to a process of cooking - one must say that they both happen at the same time. But if you happen to hold on to position 2, then they are distinct events which may happen simultaneously or perhaps the reading preceded the cooking by quite some time. It's just inconclusive - insufficient data in itself.

My position isn't Faith -> Salvation my position is Faith = Salvation, the Bible does not specify that one precedes the other but it only says that if you have Faith then you have Salvation. Faith does not lead to Salvation, Faith IS Salvation

Again, referring to my earlier post on this, justification must necessarily precede salvation - and hence, that by which you are justified should necessarily precede justification itself - which leads us to concluding faith must precede salvation. Yes, but in our physical time, all of this happens in an instant, such that you are given assurance of salvation the moment you believe.

 

[Chopper]

Hello Chopper and G'day,

John 10:26 - "but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." Notice this verse does not say "you are not my sheep because you do not believe."



Interesting perspective when it comes to others with equal reverence for God’s Word that may read it differently. I requested a belief statement from your church, any creeds and confessions. Often I hear others claim they derive their doctrine from Scripture, and they put the stamp of approval of the Holy Spirit upon it for themselves.

For example, do you individually and corporately adhere to the Nicene Creed? Perhaps you can elaborate exactly what this statement from the Creed means? "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins."

Or is it your contention Chopper, that you need no Creed and Confessions, but have only the Bible, and others are to acknowledge you having a correct understanding of the Bible? It is apparent to me that Scripture tells us what to believe, I am interested in how You came to Understand it?

Now I do not know about you personally, but Creeds and Confessions (when they align with Scripture) are a great way to guide and keep a congregation from swaying every which way throughout each generation.

Please share your church's Statement of Faith, Creeds and Confessions. It is not my intent to attack or find fault with them.



I excitedly wait to read about your personal understanding of, "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." Perhaps you too can define Regeneration?

So it is your contention that you have entered into the text with no presuppositions? You defined Pelagianism, I accept your definition, but find it contrary to you having stated that you rejected it. You say, no one is capable of saving oneself, but yet you contend that one needs faith from a state of depravity before Regeneration? Are you certain you're not aligned with Pelagianism? To clarify, you said "an individual does not take the initial steps toward salvation by his own efforts and not by the help of divine grace..." And yet you argue that one has faith before grace? If man demonstrates faith in God of himself before Regeneration is that not righteous? Please read Titus 3:5 - "he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,"

There are many texts which affirm beyond doubt that regeneration is indeed monergistic ... that the implanting of the new heart is what gives rise to understanding, love of Christ and faith. One of the most important discussions in the Bible about this is where Jesus was speaking to some fellow Jews who did not believe in him (John 6:64) . He said to them:

• “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” ( 6:37) ”
• "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44)
• "… no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." ( 6:65)

The reason I bring these three verses to your attention is because, they are spoken in the same context (John 6) and in this long discussion with Jesus and the Jews about faith these three verses are essentially speaking of the same issue. In fact they share more than one thing in common. They all use the phrase "come to me" and they each make a universal declaration ("no one" or "all"). When read in context the phrase "come to me" is spoken in the same breath as the word "faith". It is a synonym. Likewise the phrase "draws him" is used in parallel with the phrase "gives me" or "granted him". Our Lord declares that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44) and "All that the Father gives me [draws to Me] will come to me." (John 6:37). In other words, the passage simply states that no one will trust in or have faith in Jesus unless God grants it (John 6:65), and ALL to whom God grants (or gives/draws to Jesus) will believe. Not some of them, but all of them. This universal positive and universal negative means that we are forced to conclude that all that God draws to Jesus infallibly come to faith in him.

Just to demonstrate that "come to me" is identical to "faith" see that just prior to verse 37 Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” Here we observe that Jesus uses the phrase “believe in me” and “come to me” interchangeably. Even more clear is that the context of John 6:63-65 forces us to understand "come to me" to mean "believe in me" or "have faith in me". In verse 64 Jesus says, "But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

If we place these statements all together, (understanding that "come to me" and "believe in me" are synonymous), then the magnitude of the Jesus' words become evident, for it allows for no synergistic interpretation. And what does this have to do with regeneration? Well in verse 6:63 Jesus directly alludes to it: "It is the Spirit that quickens [gives life, regenerates]... No one will believe in Me unless God grants it... and ALL to whom God grants it will believe”. Jesus is making sure that no one thinks that anything apart from Jesus is what saves them. That even the very new heart we need to understand spiritual truth, love Jesus and believe is itself a gift of God. This text leaves no room for any other interpretation. This is profoundly important because it creates the inescapable conclusion that the quickening grace of God is invincible. This is why just prior to saying “no one can come to me UNLESS God grants it”, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” This means that it is the Spirit who raises our dead spirits to life, makes us born from above John 3:3, 6. The flesh, that is, our sinful nature, cannot regenerate itself and can do no redemptive good of itself, including believe the gospel until quickened by the Holy Spirit.

Faith, Jesus is saying, is not a product of our unregenerate human natures; It is, rather, the product of new life that only He can give us through the quickening work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit alone who, uniting us to Christ, gives life to our dead souls that we may believe. Jesus is affirming the same truth to Nicodemus in John 3, using the same type of language. In verse 6 Jesus tells him, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And unless one is born of the Spirit he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. Jesus never gives Nicodemus an imperative (command) to be born again, but instead, tells him what must happen to him for eternal life to be a reality. Belief springs from a change of nature, for the old man considers the gospel foolish and thus cannot comprehend it (1 Cor 2:14).

God bless,
William

Thanks again William. Without a lot of words to induce confusion to what I'm trying to point out, hear is a simple picture of Salvation.

Ephesians 1:3 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

The Elect....First action. God chooses a "Remnant"....Second action. God's Grace extended to the Elect....Third action. At sometime in the future of each of the Elect, the Holy Spirit causes the elected person to believe the report of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ....Fourth action, by faith (the gift of faith) the elected person exercises said faith and believes on Christ Jesus....Fifth action, the elected saved person now demonstrates Christian works until Jesus comes for him/her.

God is involved in each action, the elected person cannot boast of anything of himself, Salvation is the work of God, not man's works.

The only difference between the elect and non-elect is, the non-elect comes to Jesus by way of the General Call. Grace, free will choice, faith, Believe on Jesus, works of Salvation until Jesus comes.

 

[ivdavid]

Consequently, it is my own personal experience, that there could be no cleansing of a guilty conscience if I were to blame myself or others for being made of corruptible flesh.

And to be even more precise, the blamer/accuser of Adam must be certain beyond any doubt, that if put in Adam's shoes, he would have not done what Adam did.

Given that we choose to sin on account of our sinful flesh(Rom 7:17), I've always had this question whenever I was taught that sin entered the world because Adam chose wrong - What sin dwelt in his flesh before this that made him choose to do wrong in the first place, for he was not deceived and he chose of his own accord?

I hold that Adam's corruptible flesh(1Cor 15:42) was overcome(2Pet 2:19) and brought into bondage(Rom 8:21) by the nature of rebellion ie Sin - and this Sin manifested itself against the commandment(Rom 7:8) in Adam's act of disobedience.

 

[ivdavid]

The only difference between the elect and non-elect is, the non-elect comes to Jesus by way of the General Call.

"comes" or "is given opportunity to come"? I am not that confident that sinful flesh would be charitable enough to cease its enmity against God while the non-elect person attempts to exercise his freewill - for which express purpose, the elect are caused to believe right?

 

[Deborah13]

The mixing of law and grace? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

The_Epsicle , has stated it more clearly than I could have. Taking what he said.....I was taught that if I broke one law, did anything that God says is sin, then to God it was the same thing as if I had murdered someone per (James 2:10). The example was, if I were to so much as think an evil thought against someone, I had better ask forgiveness immediately or there was this unforgiven sin sitting on I account. It was possible to loose my salvation, one never knows. So if I were to not ask forgiveness and I was killed by car, etc. I could go to hell.
I know I am not the only person who has understood it this same way. I have heard it from people who now understand that this is old covenant thinking and others who still believe this way. There is such bondage in this thinking. My view of God was not what it should have been. I knew God loved me but not so much when I sinned, and maybe He would even hate me. What if I wasn't sufficiently sorry for what I did? What I was doing was putting the new wine of the new covenant into the old wineskin of the old covenant. (Matt. 9:17) It is rather like some of the believing Jews, who said to the believing gentiles, that they must be circumcised and eat only clean foods, etc. per the law. They were mixing law and grace.
I really wonder if it is that much different than the way you felt and understood.

 

[Deborah13]

I differ with your Point 1 in that I do not see any order mentioned with respect to faith and regeneration in Eze 36:26-27 - there is no mention of faith/believing there for me to accordingly sequence faith before regeneration or vice versa. Insufficient data there in itself.

I agree with you, I was answering ....
This post was made by williamt , post #119. As a proof verse, that regeneration happens before faith. I was disagreeing with him. If one does use that verse, then that verse says the indwelling to the Holy Spirit is after God has softened the heart and after He has caused us know we have broken His laws, not before. I don't believe one is regenerated, reformed into a new creation in Christ, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, therefore, this scripture does not support regeneration before faith.
The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

As an aside, why do you hold that the disciples couldn't have been indwelt by the Spirit before John 20:22 ?

The simplest reason is because if they already had it, He wouldn't have needed to give it to them again. But it also explains how there could be those who will say, Lord, Lord, didn't we do miracles, etc. in Your Name? And the Lord says, He never knew them.
(Matt. 7:21-23) The disciples were casting out demons, healing the sick, etc. by the power of His name. There was the man that they had told to stop casting out demons because he wasn't one of them. He was doing the same thing by the power of Jesus' name. After the resurrection, they had now witnessed the full gospel. He gave them the Holy Spirit and taught them for another 40 days. (Acts 1:3) It is by the knowledge and power of the Holy Spirit that the Gospel is preached.

some people actually never experience a conversion or have a conversion experience to share.

I agree with this statement. This could be especially true for people who were raised in the church, as John MacArthur was. His father was a pastor when he was born. So to try to put a finger on a particular time of belief may really be impossible, as it was a growing faith.

The salvation of OT saints was the same as NT saints, only differing in direction. OT saints had a forward looking faith, while NT saints have a rearward type of historical looking faith.

 

[Deborah13]

The salvation of OT saints was the same as NT saints, only differing in direction. OT saints had a forward looking faith, while NT saints have a rearward type of historical looking faith. Both are regenerated before faith. Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit through Regeneration or more precisely, the Holy Spirit enables Faith.

I agree with this statement.

The only difference between the elect and non-elect is, the non-elect comes to Jesus by way of the General Call. Grace, free will choice, faith, Believe on Jesus, works of Salvation until Jesus comes.

williamt , believes in two calls, one saves, one doesn't. God decides who will receive which call. Pure TULIP, doctrine.
You believe that both calls can save.
But that is not what this thread is about. So I won't pursue that topic.

 

[Chopper]

"comes" or "is given opportunity to come"? I am not that confident that sinful flesh would be charitable enough to cease its enmity against God while the non-elect person attempts to exercise his freewill - for which express purpose, the elect are caused to believe right?

The elect come because of "Irresistible Grace. There is no failure with God in who He has elected.

 

[williamt]

I would like to say the only stumbling block in Reformed Theology is a persons' "self." This thread amazes me, the inconsistencies made in argument, and the nature of competitive pride when approaching the Sovereignty and Glory belonging to God alone in Soteriology.

Throughout history, there are many who teach the doctrine of autonomous self, among whom is Pelagius. I would now quote from John Owen on what Pelagianism teaches about the autonomous self:

Autonomous "Free will" according to a close brother and Calvinist:

“According to Pelagianism, God gives grace to all who hear the law and the gospel preached. Those who do this are persuaded to repent and believe by the promises of the gospel and the threatenings of the law. The things taught and commanded in the law and gospel are seen to be not only good in themselves, but so utterly reasonable that anyone would gladly receive them if they were not so prejudiced (i.e., men can themselves respond favorably to the gospel preached by believing in the message without any regenerating work of the Holy Spirit), or deliberately chose to continue with their sinful life. Man has only to consider these promises of the gospel and threatenings of the law to remove these prejudices and so reform himself. When man believes the gospel and obeys it of his own free will and choice (again, no external divine influence at work to convince him of the truth of the gospel, on the contrary, this conviction comes out within himself), then he receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, enters into all the privileges of the New Testament, and has a right and title to all the promises concerning both the present and the future life. So say the Pelagians. Thus man converts himself, and the grace of our LORD Jesus Christ and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit are both excluded. All that is needed is the ability to persuade him to repent of his sin and believe and obey the gospel.”

In other words, the doctrine of autonomous self teaches that men in both unregenerate and regenerate states is completely independent and capable of self-determination of what is good and bad for him (hence the term autonomous) and from which make decision without any external divine influence or swaying to a particular direction.

To understand what autonomous-self is more clearly, let us look at Sproul’s definition of autonomy:

“To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.”

Further consider:

“Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:11-15)

In this text, Isaiah describes the fall of Lucifer, as well as the cause and effect of it. We learn the cause of him being eternally condemned by God from v.13 and 14 is that he is so filled with pride and self-adoration that he declares himself to be worthy to ascend into heaven and be exalted above the stars of God. He considers himself to be as equally valuable, as equally worthy, if not more valuable and more worthy than God himself that he should be like the Most High. In response, God removed him from his original state and declares that his splendor be nullified and brought down to shame, and he himself be brought down to hell, to a place of eternal torment which is the lake of fire (Rev 20:10) forever as his eternal destiny. When Lucifer was removed from heaven, his name became Satan, and was cast to the earth. In the account of the Fall in Gen 3, after which God offered hope through the redemptive work of the LORD Jesus Christ implied in v. 15, we may observe the correlation between Satan’s sinful ambition to what he tempted Adam and Eve with, which eventually led the couple to sin against God and caused the entire humanity to be totally and hopelessly depraved and under the same condemnation that Lucifer has as a result. The correlation is clearly seen in Gen 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies being offered to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself.

For further reading: Doctrine of Autonomous Self - A Hidden Idolatry

God bless,
William

 

[Malachi]

I would like to say the only stumbling block in Reformed Theology is a persons' "self."

Since there are probably millions of Bible-believing Christians who take exception to TULIP, there are at least five stumbling blocks in Reformed Theology. Naturally, you've turned a blind eye to them, but they do exist regardless. And it does not matter how many Scriptures contradict TULIP. Those who have made this their anchor refuse to let it go. That too is "self" (pride in Calvinism).

 

[Malachi]

The only difference between the elect and non-elect is, the non-elect comes to Jesus by way of the General Call. Grace, free will choice, faith, Believe on Jesus, works of Salvation until Jesus comes.

Chopper,
This would be inconsistent with Bible Truth. All the saved are the elect, but they were not elected for salvation. Election is for perfection and glorification (Rom 8:29,30). The non-elect are simply those who refused to obey the Gospel. They are neither saved nor glorified.

 

[williamt]

Since there are probably millions of Bible-believing Christians who take exception to TULIP, there are at least five stumbling blocks in Reformed Theology. Naturally, you've turned a blind eye to them, but they do exist regardless. And it does not matter how many Scriptures contradict TULIP. Those who have made this their anchor refuse to let it go. That too is "self" (pride in Calvinism).

That's your argument, seriously?

God bless,
William

 

[Chopper]

I would like to say the only stumbling block in Reformed Theology is a persons' "self." This thread amazes me, the inconsistencies made in argument, and the nature of competitive pride when approaching the Sovereignty and Glory belonging to God alone in Soteriology.

Throughout history, there are many who teach the doctrine of autonomous self, among whom is Pelagius. I would now quote from John Owen on what Pelagianism teaches about the autonomous self:

Autonomous "Free will" according to a close brother and Calvinist:



In other words, the doctrine of autonomous self teaches that men in both unregenerate and regenerate states is completely independent and capable of self-determination of what is good and bad for him (hence the term autonomous) and from which make decision without any external divine influence or swaying to a particular direction.

To understand what autonomous-self is more clearly, let us look at Sproul’s definition of autonomy:



Further consider:




In this text, Isaiah describes the fall of Lucifer, as well as the cause and effect of it. We learn the cause of him being eternally condemned by God from v.13 and 14 is that he is so filled with pride and self-adoration that he declares himself to be worthy to ascend into heaven and be exalted above the stars of God. He considers himself to be as equally valuable, as equally worthy, if not more valuable and more worthy than God himself that he should be like the Most High. In response, God removed him from his original state and declares that his splendor be nullified and brought down to shame, and he himself be brought down to hell, to a place of eternal torment which is the lake of fire (Rev 20:10) forever as his eternal destiny. When Lucifer was removed from heaven, his name became Satan, and was cast to the earth. In the account of the Fall in Gen 3, after which God offered hope through the redemptive work of the LORD Jesus Christ implied in v. 15, we may observe the correlation between Satan’s sinful ambition to what he tempted Adam and Eve with, which eventually led the couple to sin against God and caused the entire humanity to be totally and hopelessly depraved and under the same condemnation that Lucifer has as a result. The correlation is clearly seen in Gen 3:5, when Satan, disguised as a serpent, said to Eve, “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” Here are the double lies being offered to Eve springing out of the same principle behind his botched coup attempt; first, that she would be like gods, and thus independent, able to rule over herself apart from God, and secondly, there is not one God, but many gods; each is sovereign over himself or herself.

For further reading: Doctrine of Autonomous Self - A Hidden Idolatry

God bless,
William

What's your point? How does what you say fit into the OP?

 

[williamt]

What's your point? How does what you say fit into the OP?

Are you asking what the point is of having defined "free will" from a Reformed perspective?

God bless,
William

 

[ezra]

The only thing that the "elect" have that others don't, is a guarantee to be saved at some time in their life, and to persevere until the end.

not so sure as i either understand what your saying or B. agree So i ask for a explanation so as i fully understand { I find the theory of some Calvinists who believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe, to be utterly stupid and false. I believe that all those of Whom God elects to be saved, must at one time in their lives, surrender to the call of the Holy Spirit to repent of their sins, believe on Jesus Christ by faith, be baptized, and live holy and acceptable to our Master Owner, Jesus, the Christ of God.} i can agree with this personally the regeneration theory before salvation .is compared to the price is right game show. you wait to se if you will be saved? { to persevere until the end} i agree with .

 

[ezra]

I understand my new young friend. No offense taken. Mine was only an observation. You will come to realize, as we journey along in this Forum, that I'm an old country preacher. I'm what men call a "Biblicist". One of my favorite instructions from the Word of God is, 1Corinthians 4:6 "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

I find this instruction from the Apostle Paul to his Corinthian Brothers as a caution to stay strictly in and by the Word of God. It's when we add our preconceptions and opinions to any Scripture that we can run into trouble. You see, many followers of Jesus are also followers of their own ego's and want to impress those of whom they communicate with, their lofty ability to teach what the Scripture does not teach.

As a Baptist Pastor, I was constantly aware of my own pride. It was amazing how many times I set out to pray to impress the people instead of to speak to our Holy God Who is not the least bit interested in a prayer fueled by man's pride. Also there is the sermon. Is the sermon to please people, and get plenty of Amen's? Or is it built on the Word of God thru the Holy Spirit. My pride wanted to be popular, but my heart belonged to my Master and I had to stop writing my sermon and turn to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and curb the awful thing called pride....Honestly? Still do!

Love You

praise the LORD " I had to stop writing my sermon and turn to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and curb the awful thing called pride" its only way i know how to preach . i make few note with thoughts beyond that i have yet to eer write a message and i like them old country preachers... they have wisdom

 

[williamt]

I believe that all those of Whom God elects to be saved must:
1) at one time in their lives surrender to the call of the Holy Spirit to repent of their sins
2) believe on Jesus Christ by faith
3) be baptized
4) Live holy and acceptable to our Master Owner, Jesus, the Christ of God

Can you explain or elaborate on point 3 please?

regeneration theory before salvation

So you are advocating regeneration comes after these conditions left to man of himself?

you wait to se if you will be saved?

The center of Reformed Soteriology is not man. If man was left to himself he would lose his salvation.

"You wait to see if You"

How can you see, let alone enter the kingdom of God unless regenerated? I acknowledge people want to advocate blind faith in an object that they cannot see let alone draw close to.

Why is Soli Deo Gloria so difficult?

God bless,
William

 

[Sinthesis]

I understand autonomous self as part of our being created in the image of God. Without it the fall would not have been possible.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen 1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.​

 

[ivdavid]

And it does not matter how many Scriptures contradict TULIP. Those who have made this their anchor refuse to let it go.

Well, if indeed a blind eye has been turned to your pointing out the Scriptures that contradict one's beliefs - then yes, your claim is true. But do you really think that is the case here on this thread?

Unless you can give us a satisfactory answer as to why God would now command ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent, if he Had no plans to save all men, and if all men could not possibly repent, nothing else will matter.

We did begin discussing this - and I thought a proper conclusion to this point was reached in post36 - but you never got back about whether you'd considered this a satisfactory answer or not.

The doctrine(of total depravity) understands the Bible to teach that, as a consequence of the the Fall of man, every person born into the world is morally corrupt, enslaved to sin and is, apart from the grace of God, utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to turn to Christ in faith for salvation.

While you have emphasized the end of the statement, I'd emphasize the part just before - "Apart from the grace of God". Do you really hold that man in the flesh, of his own accord, can obey the Gospel apart from God's grace?

We discussed this doctrine too on this thread, with post82 presenting the argument and post108 presenting the summary conclusion. It'd help if you stated what you agreed with or disagreed with on what was discussed.

1. Could Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
2. Should Pharaoh have obeyed God at this point? Absolutely
3. Did he not adamantly refuse to obey, and instead heaped more cruelty on the Israelites because his heart was already hard? Yes

I agree with your Points 2 and 3. But if as per your Point 3, Pharaoh's heart was already hard - how could he then have obeyed God as per Point 1 ? Is that not inability in himself, that requires the stony heart to be replaced with a new one?

And yet this inability is not caused by God - and in that, He is not found unjust. We discussed this too in post93 - to which you didn't raise any objections except to move on to the order of salvation.

As a consequence(of total depravity), Calvinists believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe. The Bible teaches the opposite (Jn 1:12,13).

That's funny - Calvinists use this very verse to support their position too. That man's regeneration is not on account of his will/freewill but on account of God alone.
Anyway, John 1:12 places Faith before Adoption and John 1:13 doesn't place any conclusive sequence to regeneration. I'd say insufficient data in itself. Concerning the order of salvation - I thought I'd already dealt with it in Post181. I'd like to know what you specifically disagreed with there?

And in any event He created men (Gen 1:26,27) and angels with free will for His own eternal purposes.

In light of the Fall, and the sinfulness of our flesh(Rom 8:7, Rom 7:18), would you still consider that Will to be free from the enslavement to sin in the flesh (John 8:34)?

He foresees their hardness, but He does not create their hardness, just as He foresees the faith of others and therefore calls them "the elect".

I agree with the first part. But what is your basis for the second part? Election is an active selection process - not a mere naming ceremony. And it isn't dependent on what people do or not do but on God alone(Rom 9:11).

Election is for perfection and glorification (Rom 8:29,30). The non-elect are simply those who refused to obey the Gospel. They are neither saved nor glorified.

Is your point that - Election is simply about the What to do to a group rather than the Who that group should contain? The What is answered by the doctrine of predestination and the Who is answered by the doctrine of election, isn't it? I think our differences arise in how we interpret Rom 11:4 - did the 7000 not bow to Baal because they were reserved to God, Or were they reserved to God because they did not bow to Baal. If it is the latter, then how is the reservation made out of grace when it is based on what these 7000 did or didn't do (Rom 11:6)?