The stumbling blocks of reformed doctrines

[ivdavid]

Please, let's present the Scripture to support our arguments and statements rather than just our own opinions.

I am in full agreement with this. It's just that I find myself so convincingly steeped in my own beliefs of the truth, that they don't seem like my own opinions at all. Of course, I could be terribly blind over several such beliefs - and I request anyone who observes this to ask me to back from Scripture, any of my statements. Where I've thought the interpretation is ambiguous, I have provided the specific verses myself - but for others, it just might seem so obvious to me that it'll not strike me to quote the verses. Thanks.

 

[Obadiah]

I am in full agreement with this. It's just that I find myself so convincingly steeped in my own beliefs of the truth, that they don't seem like my own opinions at all. Of course, I could be terribly blind over several such beliefs - and I request anyone who observes this to ask me to back from Scripture, any of my statements. Where I've thought the interpretation is ambiguous, I have provided the specific verses myself - but for others, it just might seem so obvious to me that it'll not strike me to quote the verses. Thanks.

However these are the rules of this forum, and WIP's post is an official request by staff, not just a suggestion of what you might want to do. Even if you find yourself "so convincingly steeped in my own beliefs of the truth, that they don't seem like my own opinions at all" you are still required to follow the rules of this forum in each post you make. You may even find that this sort of requirement will either reinforce your already held beliefs by making you more aware of what scripture they are grounded in, or may cause you to re-think your beliefs and align them more with scripture if indeed you find yourself unable to back an original belief with scripture. But even if this doesn't happen, following the rules on each post will still save you from the unpleasantness of getting official warnings and infraction points.

By the way, I mean this as good advice for all of our members.

 

[ivdavid]

Even if you find yourself "so convincingly steeped in my own beliefs of the truth, that they don't seem like my own opinions at all" you are still required to follow the rules of this forum in each post you make.

Of course. I suppose you misread me - I wasn't giving excuses. I was merely requesting others to help me follow the rules here, by helping me remove the log in my eye which at times I might not see myself.

Basically, a plea for grace to help me keep the rules instead of the penalty for not keeping them?

 

[Obadiah]

Of course. I suppose you misread me - I wasn't giving excuses. I was merely requesting others to help me follow the rules here, by helping me remove the log in my eye which at times I might not see myself.

Basically, a plea for grace to help me keep the rules instead of the penalty for not keeping them?

I understood what you were saying. (Had I taken it as making excuses, I probably would have deleted it. :yes) In my statement as a whole I was simply pointing out some of the possible benefits of the guidelines beyond just staying out of trouble, and also mentioned I was pointing them out to everyone, not just to you.

 

[childeye]

I see total depravity the same as, there is no good thing dwelling in the flesh. Romans 7:18. Goodness is the godly spiritual component in mankind. So I ask myself this question: If a man had no Love in his heart, would he even be able to care that he had no love in his heart? My answer is NO.

I therefore conclude that we are so utterly dependent upon God for our goodness, that we need God to even show us how much we need God. 'Sin', (separation from God), began because of this vanity; wherein the creature takes the Creator for granted, by thinking we are good, because we freely choose to be good, and therefore there is 'sin', because we freely choose not to be good. That type of reasoning turns God/Love, into a prerogative according to a person's discretion, as opposed to the power that keeps a man from becoming a vile beast. Romans 1:21-23.

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,

John 4:23
But the hour cometh,and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

John 4:24
God is a Spirit:and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Deborah13]

And the doctrine of Total Depravity does not anywhere state that God created man so - God created man with the capacity to know and seek Him - it is Sin in the flesh that renders man unable to use that God-given capacity to know and seek Him. Hence, Rom 3:11-12. So again, why must God be blamed for man's inability caused by Sin in the flesh?

I have agreed that man cannot know God, seek God, or be born again, without God working in his life. But that is not the doctrine of Total Depravity. That doctrine includes predestination of individual people. It also includes regeneration before repentance. It doesn't leave room for God to work in people's lives to bring them to a place where they will seek Him.
Luk 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luk 11:10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

is it that you don't believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and Federal Headship of Adam - that all of us are born in sinful flesh itself as a consequence of Sin entering the world through Adam?

The Edenic covenant was between Adam and God. It was conditional. Adam broke this covenant and was cursed.
Adam was the representative of all mankind through him we are all cursed as well. The curse was this day you shall surely die. So that means spiritual death, as Adam did not die a physical death that day. Adam and Eve's relationship with God was severely damaged, but not to the point that they could not hear God when He spoke to them. They were afraid, ran, and tried to hide from Him. (Genesis 3:1-8) That covenant ended.
Adamic Covenant (Genesis 3:14-19) Is between God and Adam. The judgement in this covenant is on all mankind, as well.
And on satan for his part in the transgression. Under this covenant, physical death, etc. is the judgement.
Man is now conscience of good and evil, and sin and judgement. The Adamic covenant is unconditional, it is still enforce today.
So there you have it. Whether this is what you mean by doctrine of Federal Headship and Original Sin, I don't know.
I see that God makes covenants with men.

Why cannot man believe the Gospel message without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, you'll get Total Depravity as the answer.

Are we not in the same condition that Adam was after he sinned and experienced spiritual death? Adam could still hear God when He spoke to Him, that relationship was not totally severed. God speaks through the Holy Spirit usually.
Man could/can resist the Holy Spirit. In the past ages, He spoke through the prophets. He sent the Holy Spirit to speak and to circumcise hearts. The majority resisted but not all resisted.
Act 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

As a secondary point, is God unjust if He so chooses not to show forth His grace and mercy to us?

God is never unjust. God is not a liar or a deceiver. God is love. God the Father, has the same nature as the Redeemer and Lord, Jesus Christ, The Chosen One. The same nature as the Holy Spirit that convicts the world. (John 16:8-11)
Romans 9:9-23
Rom_9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

 

[ivdavid]

I see total depravity the same as, there is no good thing dwelling in the flesh. Romans 7:18.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit:and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

We're in agreement. Now that you've brought up the flesh vs spirit point - we might as well discuss it. While we do know the works of the flesh and the consequences of them - what is the flesh exactly? Is it part of our Self, our "I" ? If so, what is its scope of operation in us - what exactly does it do for us to bring forth Gal 5:19-21?

 

[ivdavid]

I have agreed that man cannot know God, seek God, or be born again, without God working in his life. But that is not the doctrine of Total Depravity.

Well, to me, that is all it is. If it's just the term 'total depravity' that stands between us acknowledging what we've effectively agreed upon, then off with the term. Let's call it something else, say the doctrine of "sinfulness of the flesh"?
Its tenets would start with what childeye quoted -
1. There is no good thing dwelling in the flesh (Rom 7:18).
2. The inclination of the flesh is in enmity against God (Rom 8:7).

The implications of this would be -
1. No man in the flesh seeks God(Rom 3:11) or does good in the sight of God(Rom 3:12) or pleases God(Rom 8:8) until God intervenes in his life.

..that is not the doctrine of Total Depravity. That doctrine includes predestination of individual people. It also includes regeneration before repentance.

Actually, it doesn't. The Arminians too believe in total depravity without believing in individual election and the Lutherans believe in total depravity while holding that repentance precedes regeneration. So one could hold on to Total Depravity without taking the other doctrines as a package deal. Anyway, if you are in agreement with the above tenets and implications of "sinfulness of the flesh", let us drop the term "total depravity" altogether.

 

[williamt]

Very good my friend. I am a Calvinist as long as his theology is in line with the Word of God. Unfortunately, there is missing in his teachings the ability for those who are not of the "elect" to become a child of God using their "free will". As you know, my doctrine of Salvation includes a "General Call Of The Gospel" which allows anyone to decide to follow Jesus or reject Him.

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.

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.

Hello Chopper,

You are a Calvinist as long as the theology is inline with the word of God? Do you have a belief statement for your church, Creeds, and Confessions? Or is it your contention that your own understanding and resulting belief of the word of God requires none?

I am curious about your comment, "Unfortunately, there is missing in his teachings the ability for those who are not of the "elect" to become a child of God using their "free will". " Another words you believe those who are not of the elect can will themselves through Christ? How do you reconcile your statement with John 6:44?

You said "the ability for those who are not of the elect" .... curious as to how you define "free will"? Are you defining it as an autonomous or libertarian will where one can act independent of a sin nature without regeneration? I am also curious as to how you have determined the elect from the non elect that will themselves to God?

I find the theory of some Calvinists who believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe, to be utterly stupid and false.

I am one that believes this. I believe Salvation is monergistic rather than synergistic. Perhaps you can elaborate more, and provide Scripture and your personal commentary to explain your position? If you have time please also explain how your position differs from that of Pelagianism?

God bless,
William

 

[The_Epsicle]

I am one that believes this. I believe Salvation is monergistic rather than synergistic. Perhaps you can elaborate more, and provide Scripture and your personal commentary to explain your position? If you have time please also explain how your position differs from that of Pelagianism?

I'm not Chopper obviously but I figured I'd take a crack at this one, while I understand this is a question I'm going to ask you for scripture to validate your assertment that regeneration can precede belief, it is apparent from my reading of scripture that this is incorrect even though I also take a monergistic view on Salvation, and I will show you why.

EDIT: Figured I'd state here that my belief is the opposite of Pelagianism, I confess the doctrine of Original Sin / Total Depraivity /The Bondage of Will / Whateverwe'recallingitthisweek

"And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family." - Acts 16:29-33 ESV

I see no reason to draw from this verse that the Philippian jailor's Salvation preceded his Faith, rather I see that his Faith resulted in his Salvation, at the instant of his Faith in Christ he received Salvation through Christ. Another verse from Acts:

"Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”" - Acts 2:37-39 ESV

Again from this verse I see no reason to believe that those who heard the Word of God that day had their Salvation preceded by their Faith. Rather we see again that their Faith resulted in Salvation(John 6:47) and because of their Faith they were Baptized and received the Holy Spirit and assurance of their Salvation through their Baptism. None of this means they themselves played any role in their Salvation even in their Faith(Ephesians 2:8), they received their Faith from the Holy Spirit(1 Corinthians 12:3) working through Peter and the Word of God(Romans 1:16) he spoke and later through their Baptism(1 Peter 3:21).

While being careful to acknowledge that whenever an analogy is used it can take away or add to scripture and a heresy may be the result, I view it as pertinent to use one now to describe how men who reject God have only themselves to blame(2 Kings 17:14-15, Nehemiah 9:16, Acts 7:51-53) but men who accept God only have God as the reason for accepting him(Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9).

A father sees his son fall down a well(Romans 3:23), so the father goes and grabs a rope the son sees the rope and grabs hold and the father pulls the son up(Romans 3:24-26). Did the son save himself? Of course not(Ephesians 2:8), the father saved the son and the son played no part in it(Ephesians 2:9, Romans 3:28), you might argue that the son grabbed hold of the rope and thus played a role in him being saved, but the son would not have been able to grab the rope if the father had not given the choice to him(Ephesians 2:10), in this case handing him the rope, so this too is a fallacy and the son has still played no part in saving his life. Let's reset the scenario and see the son fall down the well and the father throw the rope down to him, the son refuses to grab the rope and drowns(John 3:18). Did that father deliberately kill the son? Of course not(John 3:16-17, Romans 3:3-4) the father did all he could to save the son and the son refused to grab the rope. Did the son kill himself? Yes(Ezekiel 3:19), this much is certain because the father provided a means of escape(1 Corinthians 10:13) and an ability to choose that means of escape and the son still refused out of his stubbornness(Zechariah 7:11-12, Jeremiah 13:10), so the son only has himself to blame for his death.

 

[Chopper]

I'm not Chopper obviously but I figured I'd take a crack at this one, while I understand this is a question I'm going to ask you for scripture to validate your assertment that regeneration can precede belief, it is apparent from my reading of scripture that this is incorrect even though I also take a monergistic view on Salvation, and I will show you why.

EDIT: Figured I'd state here that my belief is the opposite of Pelagianism, I confess the doctrine of Original Sin / Total Depraivity /The Bondage of Will / Whateverwe'recallingitthisweek

"And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family." - Acts 16:29-33 ESV

I see no reason to draw from this verse that the Philippian jailor's Salvation preceded his Faith, rather I see that his Faith resulted in his Salvation, at the instant of his Faith in Christ he received Salvation through Christ. Another verse from Acts:

"Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”" - Acts 2:37-39 ESV

Again from this verse I see no reason to believe that those who heard the Word of God that day had their Salvation preceded by their Faith. Rather we see again that their Faith resulted in Salvation(John 6:47) and because of their Faith they were Baptized and received the Holy Spirit and assurance of their Salvation through their Baptism. None of this means they themselves played any role in their Salvation even in their Faith(Ephesians 2:8), they received their Faith from the Holy Spirit(1 Corinthians 12:3) working through Peter and the Word of God(Romans 1:16) he spoke and later through their Baptism(1 Peter 3:21).

While being careful to acknowledge that whenever an analogy is used it can take away or add to scripture and a heresy may be the result, I view it as pertinent to use one now to describe how men who reject God have only themselves to blame(2 Kings 17:14-15, Nehemiah 9:16, Acts 7:51-53) but men who accept God only have God as the reason for accepting him(Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, 2 Timothy 1:9).

A father sees his son fall down a well(Romans 3:23), so the father goes and grabs a rope the son sees the rope and grabs hold and the father pulls the son up(Romans 3:24-26). Did the son save himself? Of course not(Ephesians 2:8), the father saved the son and the son played no part in it(Ephesians 2:9, Romans 3:28), you might argue that the son grabbed hold of the rope and thus played a role in him being saved, but the son would not have been able to grab the rope if the father had not given the choice to him(Ephesians 2:10), in this case handing him the rope, so this too is a fallacy and the son has still played no part in saving his life. Let's reset the scenario and see the son fall down the well and the father throw the rope down to him, the son refuses to grab the rope and drowns(John 3:18). Did that father deliberately kill the son? Of course not(John 3:16-17, Romans 3:3-4) the father did all he could to save the son and the son refused to grab the rope. Did the son kill himself? Yes(Ezekiel 3:19), this much is certain because the father provided a means of escape(1 Corinthians 10:13) and an ability to choose that means of escape and the son still refused out of his stubbornness(Zechariah 7:11-12, Jeremiah 13:10), so the son only has himself to blame for his death.

Thank you Epsicle my friend for coming to my aid, I appreciate that and like what you wrote.

 

[Deborah13]

A father sees his son fall down a well(Romans 3:23), so the father goes and grabs a rope the son sees the rope and grabs hold and the father pulls the son up(Romans 3:24-26). Did the son save himself? Of course not(Ephesians 2:8), the father saved the son and the son played no part in it(Ephesians 2:9, Romans 3:28), you might argue that the son grabbed hold of the rope and thus played a role in him being saved, but the son would not have been able to grab the rope if the father had not given the choice to him(Ephesians 2:10), in this case handing him the rope, so this too is a fallacy and the son has still played no part in saving his life. Let's reset the scenario and see the son fall down the well and the father throw the rope down to him, the son refuses to grab the rope and drowns(John 3:18). Did that father deliberately kill the son? Of course not(John 3:16-17, Romans 3:3-4) the father did all he could to save the son and the son refused to grab the rope. Did the son kill himself? Yes(Ezekiel 3:19), this much is certain because the father provided a means of escape(1 Corinthians 10:13) and an ability to choose that means of escape and the son still refused out of his stubbornness(Zechariah 7:11-12, Jeremiah 13:10), so the son only has himself to blame for his death.

:nod

 

[Chopper]

Hello William. and welcome to our Forum. It sounds to me like you didn't fully study my doctrine, and your preconceptions blinded you to the truth of my statements. I'll give you a little fatherly advice. When you read someone's doctrine, you must take a neutral position in evaluating said doctrine. After you have read the doctrine, then go back and see if you agree or disagree because if you don't, your own doctrine, if compared to someone Else's doctrine, as you read it, will never be understood in the purity of which it was presented.

I believe, in order for someone to be saved, whether the Elect or non-elect coming thru the General Call, the Holy Spirit must be involved urging that person to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins leading to repentance and Salvation.

As my friend Epsicle said, Faith must come before Salvation....I say, that the Salvation of any individual must be preceded by the Grace of God, the urging of the Holy Spirit, and the gift of initial faith given to this individual to believe, and the actual repentance of sin and the receiving of Christ Jesus for Salvation. This person must make a choice (free will) to choose or reject the offer given by the Holy Spirit.

Here's the definition of the noun Pelagianism.... A heretical doctrine, first formulated by Pelagius, that rejected the concept of original sin and maintained that the individual takes the initial steps towards salvation by his own efforts and not by the help of divine grace....I reject that doctrine! REMINDER, "Total depravity" - No one is capable of saving oneself.

I would suggest that you read my original doctrine again, there you will find all the answers to your questions.

 

[Malachi]

The Edenic covenant was between Adam and God. It was conditional. Adam broke this covenant and was cursed. Adam was the representative of all mankind through him we are all cursed as well. The curse was this day you shall surely die. So that means spiritual death, as Adam did not die a physical death that day. Adam and Eve's relationship with God was severely damaged, but not to the point that they could not hear God when He spoke to them. They were afraid, ran, and tried to hide from Him. (Genesis 3:1-8) That covenant ended.

Deborah,
There never was a "covenant" to begin with. This is one of the fallacies of Covenant Theology, and purely a fantasy. And it is not even a dispensation, since it may not have lasted but a few days (for all we know).

You will not find the word "covenant" in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. God gave Adam (a) a stewardship (b) a privilege, (c) a command and (d) a warning. Period (Gen 2:15-17).

STEWARDSHIP
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
COMMAND AND PRIVILEGE
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
COMMAND AND WARNING
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

[williamt]

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."

I find the theory of some Calvinists who believe that people are regenerated BEFORE they believe, to be utterly stupid and false.

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.

Hello William. and welcome to our Forum. It sounds to me like you didn't fully study my doctrine, and your preconceptions blinded you to the truth of my statements. I'll give you a little fatherly advice. When you read someone's doctrine, you must take a neutral position in evaluating said doctrine...

Here's the definition of the noun Pelagianism.... A heretical doctrine, first formulated by Pelagius, that rejected the concept of original sin and maintained that the individual takes the initial steps towards salvation by his own efforts and not by the help of divine grace....I reject that doctrine! REMINDER, "Total depravity" - No one is capable of saving oneself.

I would suggest that you read my original doctrine again, there you will find all the answers to your questions.

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

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah,
There never was a "covenant" to begin with. This is one of the fallacies of Covenant Theology, and purely a fantasy. And it is not even a dispensation, since it may not have lasted but a few days (for all we know).

You will not find the word "covenant" in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. God gave Adam (a) a stewardship (b) a privilege, (c) a command and (d) a warning. Period (Gen 2:15-17).

STEWARDSHIP
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
COMMAND AND PRIVILEGE
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
COMMAND AND WARNING
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

What you have basically described here is a bilateral, conditional covenant. Blessing and curse based on performance.

 

[Brother Mike]

The first point I'd like to discuss over is - Is God fair or unfair in holding people to the curse of a law that was never meant to be a provision of life? Is it acceptable to command man to obey the law and judge him for not doing so, while knowing fully the inevitable intended outcome is that of disobedience?

Your question is invalid. You have to start with a valid question, for a discussion to be had.

For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
(Rom 2:11-15)

Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Nobody has been judged not having the law for breaking the law. A man having the law, and did not the law was judged by the law He did not keep. Is it unfair people get arrested for robbing banks? Did those bank Robbers not know that robbing a bank was against the law? Their own conscience says yes, for they had masks on to hide their identity, wore gloves, and made a plan to get in and out as quickly as possible, knowing by conscience they were breaking the law.

Does that make the law against bank robbery unfair? Not hardly.

Those without God's law by conscience do the things contained in the law. It's written in their hearts, knowing what is right or wrong. A man knowing to do right, but does wrong against his own heart, is it unfair to judge him? Not hardly.

The law of sin and death reached the whole planet to those who did not even sin after Adam's transgressions. The planet is cursed, the effects of the curse are here. Satan is the god of this world, He has a legal right to be here.

The effects of the curse is not punishment for not keeping the law, for the curse effected those who kept the law, and those that did not. Sickness, Mold, loss of family, loss of crops, all effects of the curse which Jesus through faith, made us free from.

Every single person has to deal with the effects of the curse. Just as every single person has to pay taxes, knowing that the money is going into projects they find immorally wrong. Is God unfair if everyone is effected? Is the government unfair that everyone has to pay taxes? Not hardly.

The obedience and law of faith is a greater law than the law of sin and death. Through Jesus, and faith, we now have a way to escape the effects of the curse, and miss the punishment we deserve for breaking the laws written in our own hearts.

Is making a way out, make God unfair? Not hardly.

Mike.

 

[Deborah13]

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."

Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, `I told you, and ye do not believe; the works that I do in the name of my Father, these testify concerning me;
Joh 10:26 but ye do not believe, for ye are not of my sheep,
Joh 10:27 according as I said to you: My sheep my voice do hear, and I know them, and they follow me,

Why didn't they hear His voice and follow Him?

Act 7:51 `Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and in ears! ye do always the Holy Spirit resist; as your fathers--also ye;
Act 7:52 which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed those who declared before about the coming of the Righteous One, of whom now ye betrayers and murderers have become,

That is why they didn't hear, they kept resisting the Holy Spirit....which kept them from being circumcised in the heart and ears.

Nowhere does Jesus say, You are not My sheep because you weren't chosen to be My sheep. He says they are not His sheep because they keep resisting what the Holy Spirit was showing them.

 

[williamt]

Why didn't they hear His voice and follow Him?

Ezekiel 36:25-27 -
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Throughout the OT and NT the same axiom exists, "Regeneration precedes faith.

Faith is a fruit of Regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

Soli Deo Gloria!

God bless,
William

 

[Deborah13]

27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.

Two things,
Using this verse to apply to the order of salvation, the Holy Spirit is given last, not first.
Regeneration is not complete without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.