What is Election?

[chessman]

Ah, 'God's (His) faith.

I get it now.

Yes, that's what i meant.

A
(By the way, I did get a C+ on my final exam. The patient lived for 36 hours after the surgery. If he had lived another 24 hours I would have gotten a B+. An 'A' if he recovered and returned to work.)

not bad.

So if, just hypothetically, there was a Great Physician (the professor of the universe, not just a Med School) that performed an exceptional brain surgery and actually had 100%success rate at every one He performed and that each surgery resulted in giving His patients, not just 36 hours of life, but eternal life; what grade is that? A++++++...

Let me spend some time to give your previous post due response time/effort.

But i can say quickly, nobody asks for brain surgery against their will, nor do physicians perform such against a patient's will. I think it's against the law. (Law)

 

[chessman]

So then you do not believe that 'election' means 'determined by God apart from any consideration whatsoever of the individual and any contribution he makes',?

Of course that’s not what I think ‘election’ means. I’m no expert on all the various reformed Theologians, but the one’s I have read (and that I think I understand what they are saying) that statement is not accurately representative of their view on ‘election’ either. There might be some out there, but I’m not aware of them. BTW, nor have I seen any posters here in this thread take that view of ‘election’ either. Again, I might be wrong, however. They can speak for themselves.
Frankly, it’s;
1) illogical. For what does a phrase even mean; “apart from any consideration whatsoever of the individual…”). Individuals, are … well, individual. They come into being individually and have their own heartbeats, hairs, breaths, warts, etc. to include their own faiths’ and beliefs’ and wills’.
2) Anti-Scriptural: I could list dozens in addition to the one I already mentioned (from the reformer of all reformers (Paul in Rom 4:5; And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness) for which you’re above characterization of ‘election’ conflicts. But why not just John 3:16?
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”

Now, if you’d have just stopped with the definition of ‘election’ as “'election' means 'determined by God”. I’d have no problem with that view of Election nor finding dozens of passages to support it.

Do you mean this as a belief and faith produced in consideration of what the individual wants, or doesn't want? What I mean is, do you believe that the ability to believe and accept the truth was given to him in order to meet the condition for election and be graciously elected by God?

Wow. That’s a mouthful. But I assume you got what I meant by my point with Romans 4:5. I think you did get it with your next post so I will not even try to answer this question.

Do you believe God violates his own word that he wants all men to be saved by the fact that, in the end, he will not having mercy on very many people at all?

Again, wow, that’s a rather unnecessarily long, assumptive and compound question.
I could take it one element at a time and answer them this way, however:

1. Do you believe God violates his own word. No. Never.

2. Do you believe God wants all men to be saved? Yes. [See what I mean. I would have to answer question #1 NO, yet answer question #2, as yes. But you ran them together, which makes it difficult to answer any question(s) phrased in the form you used.
But we could then go on (and probably should if you are interested) to discuss God’s Prescriptive will and God’s Decretive will, if you’d like. And how each and every Scripture that speaks of God’s will should be viewed within its own context and not necessarily think of God’s will as being so directly analogous to the will of us finite creatures (like you or me).
Or, we could even figure out how God doesn’t need any brain surgery to ‘see’ into individual’s hearts (their beliefs), even prior to them actually having hearts. But we’d have to first stipulate that God is not like us.. His will IS NOT directly 100% analogues to our will. So we couldn’t speak about “will” without that stipulation.

3.

Do you believe…, in the end, he will not have mercy on very many people at all?

Evidently that’s true, yes. I leave it up to God to decide. But, yes, I understand “few” will make it.

a. Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
b. Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”​

 

[ivdavid]

What is it in a person that refuses, or accepts the call of God? If you say God gives them the will to choose or deny the truth, that is in effect him creating believers and unbelievers without consideration of the person to choose himself. And worse, making him a liar who said he wants all men to be saved and not die.

I hold all of the below to be simultaneously true -

1. God alone determines who will be saved.
2. God causes the regenerate to will and do according to His good pleasure.
3. God does not cause the unregenerate's unbelief or sin.
4. No man in the flesh, inclusive of Adam as he was created, can resist the eventual corruption of sin.
5. God desires each and every man to be saved.
6. Man himself chooses to disobey and perish.
7. None of the unregenerate choose to obey and be subject to God's Law in any act of theirs.
8. God is continually Perfect, Just and Right.
9. All of the above are logically consistent with Scripture.

 

[ivdavid]

Spiritual robots do not bring glory to God, no more than raising natural sons of Abraham out of the ground does.

Whatever God does is Glorious. Matt 3:9 states no man can claim any merit or glory for himself - since it's not dependent on him at all.

And who spoke about any robots? Am I talking of a man who does not have a consciousness that can choose or who does not have a nature that can generate desires and counsel? What do you find unbiblical when I say that God created man in a flesh-nature first - and then regenerates him in a spirit-nature born of the Holy Spirit [John 3:6, 1Cor 15:46] ? I did ask you - why didn't God create all in the spirit alone, born of the Holy Spirit, in the first place itself - why did God "manufacture" man in the flesh that could get corrupted by sin?

Also, are you saying that God manufactured "natural robots" until they were given the "invitation to regeneration", given that you believe they have no choice at all until then?

Even the angels were created with choice.

Of course they were, just like man. And just like man, the ones who are elect have been preserved unto making the right choices.

 

[ivdavid]

Rightly divide the truth - Adam and Eve were sown as natural beings, uncorrupt yet corruptible. There is then the corruption of this natural state by sin - and this corruption is what causes man to disobey. Did God cause sin and corruption here?

Paul says the commandment exposes sin, not births it in a person.

Where did you pick "commandment births sin" from what I'd written?

You qualified your statement with 'in any way'.

We all have been turned over to the inevitability of sin by God himself.

Yes, I did qualify it so. And my question still holds. What is God's causative role in all this - He first purposed that "flesh should give birth to flesh". Is that God causing sin? Then sin enters the flesh in the Garden of Eden - did God cause sin there? Now putting the two events together, sinful flesh gives birth to sinful flesh - if you've not found God causing sin in either of the above events, where has God caused sin in our current scenario of us having sin in our flesh? This is precisely why we started discussing the doctrine of original sin and federal headship of Adam in this thread.

 

[ivdavid]

And if you do not accept soil number three as regenerate then you are probably condemning yourself as unregenerate.

What does the seed represent - the Gospel of Christ specifically or God's overall commandments unto good works? I do not see the parable of the sower to represent one's sanctification process - i hold it to represent the various responses to the preaching/sowing of the Gospel of Christ. Accordingly, I hold only the soil that sees the seed persist unto fruit(Gospel taking firm root as faith unto bearing good works), as regenerate. I am a believer of eternal security - hence, I do not believe any of the regenerate can fall away.

But soil number two believed. How do you explain this if, as you say, it is unregenerate?

1John 2:19. Just as not all (physical)Israel is the real (spiritual)Israel, not all the (physical)Church is the real (spiritual)Church. All the regenerate will continue to repent and believe because it is God who makes them stand and not be snatched away.

 

[ivdavid]

I detest this attitude in the church today that say, "I'm saved, and there was nothing I could do or not do before that to affect that, and there's nothing I can do or not do about that now. That's just the way God wants it." This is what I mean by the church erroneously making grace so utterly gracious that we are either made a believer by God, or we are not ENTIRELY at his discretion with nothing being taken into consideration of the person themselves. This is very, very dangerous doctrine--not just because it's wrong--but because of the kind of 'church' it has produced. A very deceived church.

That's pretty much what I'd say. To be more contextually precise, I'd say - " I'm saved, and I did absolutely nothing that could amount to a causative factor of such salvation - and there's nothing I want to nor thankfully can do to nullify such salvation. Everything is fulfilled as per what God purposes."

As to your "detestation" of this "wrong" "deception" - I hope you're aware that your statement entirely hinges on whether your doctrine is indeed the truth - which if it's not, would and should merit the same detestation from all who believe the opposite. Which is why we'd be better off only discussing why it is we believe whatever we each do.

 

[ivdavid]

The longer a piece of soil remains hardened, the harder it will get.

I acknowledge the limitations of analogies - and I don't mind any revisions as long as you keep defining the parallels clearly. As asked earlier, what is the equivalent of God's holy commandments, and the equivalent of man's sinning - and what is the effect of such sinning in your analogy? Why does God take out the hardened heart and create a new heart in its place - given that you hold regeneration itself dependent on the inherent quality of the old heart?

Out of time, but all I can say is you have failed to illustrate how regeneration works in your doctrine.

I've presented all relevant material already (quoted again below). Ask specific questions on points that you need further clarification on.

God creates all men exactly the same concerning morality/salvation - gives all men exactly the same law to justify themselves - offers all men the same Gospel of salvation and commands them to believe - and all men choose to disobey the Gospel. At this point, God is justified if He were to condemn all men - and as Sovereign King, He is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills too. The subset of all these condemned, that God now wills to have mercy upon - are the 'elect'. And given God's operation out of time(though in sequence) - He purposed this 'election' before the foundation of the world. Again, in sequence, having shown mercy, God regenerates the object of mercy - who then inevitably Chooses to repent and believe in Christ.

And given your earlier strong objection against regeneration preceding faith - why are you not clarifying why you've described regeneration itself as the "invitation to regeneration" that precedes faith?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

As asked earlier, what is the equivalent of God's holy commandments...

Some of the seed that is sown.

...and the equivalent of man's sinning...

The hardness of the soil, and/or the weeds.

...and what is the effect of such sinning in your analogy?

Seeds lay on top of hard soil. And weeds may stifle any good growth.

Why does God take out the hardened heart and create a new heart in its place - given that you hold regeneration itself dependent on the inherent quality of the old heart?

The 'changing' of the soil is breaking it up so the seed can get in, and watering it with water, and having new growth in it. That's what makes it 'new'. But even in the parable of the sower we see that just because that happens doesn't mean that soil is regenerate and that person will be saved. You yourself say soil #2 where the soil received the planting and even started growing it up is not saved/regenerate soil at the same time that you say the planting and watering is categorically equivalent to salvation.

Jesus teaches that just because seed got planted and was even growing doesn't mean that person will sustain that growth and be saved. And as he points out it's because of the soil. It's impossible to argue that it is not because of the soil itself. The grace of God is that it was cultivated and planted and watered in the first place. Nothing happens, no matter what the potential of the soil is, until God does that.

And given your earlier strong objection against regeneration preceding faith - why are you not clarifying why you've described regeneration itself as the "invitation to regeneration" that precedes faith?

Why? Because the invitation is not being born again. If it was, the many that are called would also be the chosen. But the Bible says it is only the chosen few, among all the many called, that are saved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

That's pretty much what I'd say. To be more contextually precise, I'd say - " I'm saved, and I did absolutely nothing that could amount to a causative factor of such salvation - and there's nothing I want to nor thankfully can do to nullify such salvation. Everything is fulfilled as per what God purposes."

And you still have not explained how this does not amount to God making, or not making believers as he chooses. Saying God gives man the will to be saved is still God making, or not making believers as he chooses. Can't you see that?

In my doctrine, he does in fact arouse the will of man to be saved, but the person being enabled to believe, and then that person actually believing, depends on the potential of the soil itself, not on the fact that the person was enabled. Understand? I have shown you where the Bible confirms what I'm saying.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I do not see the parable of the sower to represent one's sanctification process - i hold it to represent the various responses to the preaching/sowing of the Gospel of Christ.

Accordingly, I hold only the soil that sees the seed persist unto fruit(Gospel taking firm root as faith unto bearing good works), as regenerate.

Can't you see the contradiction in these two statements?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes, I did qualify it so. And my question still holds. What is God's causative role in all this - He first purposed that "flesh should give birth to flesh". Is that God causing sin? Then sin enters the flesh in the Garden of Eden - did God cause sin there? Now putting the two events together, sinful flesh gives birth to sinful flesh - if you've not found God causing sin in either of the above events, where has God caused sin in our current scenario of us having sin in our flesh? This is precisely why we started discussing the doctrine of original sin and federal headship of Adam in this thread.

God allows man to grow unrighteousness in the soil of his heart.

Just as he allows righteousness to grow in the soil of his heart.

Which allowance of God we choose is a direct refection of our fundamental potential to either love righteousness, or hate it. God does not assign that fundamental potential. By virtue of being thinking, intelligent beings that potential is ours alone. God's grace is whether or not the potential to love righteousness and be saved will be realized or not. But your doctrine has grace being the assignment of the potential to love righteousness.

 

[ivdavid]

The grace of God is that it was cultivated and planted and watered in the first place. Nothing happens, no matter what the potential of the soil is, until God does that.

The soil analogy would be sufficient if you held only the soil texture(hardness or permeability) to be the "fundamental potential" of the heart - but you hold something else (such as nutrients) as the "fundamental potential" of the heart. And moreover you make it independent of the soil texture and the weeds that grow out of such soil. In the case of the unregenerate, does sin operate independent of their own desires and inclinations of the heart? And if you do concede they're not independent - doesn't one's continual sinning then show that there's no good fundamental potential in the hearts of the unregenerate?

...you say the planting and watering is categorically equivalent to salvation.

Where did I say that? I thought we were discussing your beliefs through this analogy you've formulated - I do not consider your description of "planting and watering" to be regeneration at all.

My version of the analogy would be -
The gardener plants and waters good seeds(common grace of His holy commandments) in the soil of a field(heart of man). But there is a corruption(sin) that has befallen this soil, which changes the soil texture to a state that doesn't support the growth of these good seeds but instead supports only the growth of bad plants - which has a cumulative effect of further corrupting the soil texture and depleting the soil nutrients completely. I hold all soil attributes (both texture and nutrients) to be indicative of the "fundamental potential" of the heart. Now the gardener sees the soil to be totally unprofitable for any growth whatsoever. He has a choice to either let the field go barren - Or he can regenerate the soil. If the gardener chooses the latter - he would put in brand new soil that is well textured and that has renewed nutrients - and he resumes his planting and watering of good seeds which now give fruit.

The 'changing' of the soil is breaking it up so the seed can get in, and watering it with water, and having new growth in it. That's what makes it 'new'. But even in the parable of the sower we see that just because that happens doesn't mean that soil is regenerate and that person will be saved.

You stated earlier that you held most of the regenerate to be falling below soil#4 - and here you're stating that even these are not indicative of having been regenerated. Which soil types exactly do you hold to be regenerated? Or is there a mixture within each soil type - where there could be both regenerate and unregenerate people in each of soil#2 and soil#3?

Can't you see the contradiction in these two statements?

If I did, I wouldn't have stated them. So, no - I don't see any contradiction. Perhaps you'd like to get something specific clarified then?

The same Gospel message is preached to all - and only the regenerate heart is able to truly discern and hold fast to the truth unto salvation. What's complicated here?

Why? Because the invitation is not being born again.

I acknowledge this as your position - but what is the difference in what God does when comparing His work of inviting and His work of regenerating. What you described earlier showed no difference at all - hence the request to clarify.

If it was, the many that are called would also be the chosen. But the Bible says it is only the chosen few, among all the many called, that are saved.

This is a problem faced in your doctrine alone. In my worldview, the invitation/calling to all is through the preaching of the Gospel - which is rejected completely by all except the few chosen who are regenerated and are saved.

 

[ivdavid]

God allows man to grow unrighteousness in the soil of his heart. Just as he allows righteousness to grow in the soil of his heart.

Which allowance of God we choose is a direct reflection of our fundamental potential to either love righteousness, or hate it. God does not assign that fundamental potential. By virtue of being thinking, intelligent beings that potential is ours alone.

I agree to all the above. And then I'm saying that any good "fundamental potential" in us has been corrupted by sin - and now all of us are without any such fundamental potential to love and support righteousness to grow out of our hearts. And that's precisely why God creates a new heart with "new fundamental potential" that can now support righteousness.

And you still have not explained how this does not amount to God making, or not making believers as he chooses. Saying God gives man the will to be saved is still God making, or not making believers as he chooses. Can't you see that?

We believers are indeed completely and totally God's workmanship - but I've been denying the inverse where you conclude wrongly that the unbelievers are also God's workmanship. They are sin's workmanship.

In my doctrine, he does in fact arouse the will of man to be saved, but the person being enabled to believe, and then that person actually believing, depends on the potential of the soil itself, not on the fact that the person was enabled. Understand? I have shown you where the Bible confirms what I'm saying.

I've always understood this is what you're saying - I'm only questioning its consistency. And I must have clearly missed where you cited Scriptural references to your position that there is undeniably such a fundamental potential in man, apart from what God does in him, which results in one's believing when given the "chance" - could you just tell me the post# so I could go back and see these references.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...I'm saying that any good "fundamental potential" in us has been corrupted by sin - and now all of us are without any such fundamental potential to love and support righteousness to grow out of our hearts. And that's precisely why God creates a new heart with "new fundamental potential" that can now support righteousness.

I'm going to nail this discussion down to this single point.

What role does man have in 'deciding' if he will get a new heart, or not?

...I must have clearly missed where you cited Scriptural references to your position that there is undeniably such a fundamental potential in man, apart from what God does in him...

Let's get right to the point.

If God does EVERYTHING, even giving man the desire to love righteousness, apart from any potential to love righteousness himself, how can God do this and not be simply cranking out spiritual robots?

And worse, cranking them out in far less numbers than he himself says he would like to see made.

 

[ivdavid]

I'm going to nail this discussion down to this single point.

What role does man have in 'deciding' if he will get a new heart, or not?

When is this question being posed?

Before man's regeneration, man's role is to "decide" to want and ask for a new heart (Eze 18:31). Every man "decides" against this.

At man's regeneration, man's decision is not a factor at all - as it is wholly dependent on God's mercy alone.

If God does EVERYTHING, even giving man the desire to love righteousness, apart from any potential to love righteousness himself, how can God do this and not be simply cranking out spiritual robots?

Define "robot" and state the areas where you hold man to be different from them - and I shall answer this question.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...doesn't one's continual sinning then show that there's no good fundamental potential in the hearts of the unregenerate?

It shows one of two things:

1) There is no potential to be realized in the soil

2) If there is potential there, God has not realized it yet.

I want you to tell me straight up what role man has in God realizing the potential of the soil of men's hearts. If you say none, then you are in fact saying God cranks out spiritual robots.

Now the gardener sees the soil to be totally unprofitable for any growth whatsoever. He has a choice to either let the field go barren - Or he can regenerate the soil. If the gardener chooses the latter - he would put in brand new soil that is well textured and that has renewed nutrients - and he resumes his planting and watering of good seeds which now give fruit.

Where is man's will in this?

A man who was given the will to be regenerated is still a factory line product cranked out by God. And a line of products produced solely by God that falls far short of his own words that say he wants all men to be saved and takes no pleasure in the death of men.

You stated earlier that you held most of the regenerate to be falling below soil#4...

Actually, I didn't say that. Jesus said soil number two believes. The seed found a hospitable plot of ground and started sprouting. But it could not sustain that growth because the soil was not deep enough. Again, a problem with the soil that got regenerated (it has growth in it), not the seed planted in it, or the will of the person doing the planting.

And the seed found a hospitable place in soil number three too. How do we know? Because the weeds have something to choke out. And once again, it's a problem with the soil that got regenerated (there is growth there), not a problem with the seed, or the will of the person doing the planting.

...and here you're stating that even these are not indicative of having been regenerated.

Careful. I said they were not saved in the end. But we know they had regenerative growth (signifying salvation) in them.

Which soil types exactly do you hold to be regenerated?

One through four. But, true to the rest of scripture, soil must produce the fruits of the kingdom to the end in order to be saved.

Or is there a mixture within each soil type - where there could be both regenerate and unregenerate people in each of soil#2 and soil#3?

No. Only people who were once regenerated with the things of God but who then rejected those things and became fruitless, and as a result, burned on the Day of Judgment, not saved.

If I did, I wouldn't have stated them. So, no - I don't see any contradiction. Perhaps you'd like to get something specific clarified then?

I had hoped by me asking that you'd then examine it for the contradiction.

The problem is the indoctrination of OSAS gripping the minds of the church today has you unable to see the four soils as progressive as well as indicative of any one moment in time. I personally have been all four of the soils. I don't want to come right out and say I'm number four soil, but I will humbly say I'm not presently being choked out very much at all by weeds as happens in the third kind of soil. But I have definitely been there.

I didn't suddenly gets regenerated/saved when the weeds stopped choking out God's growth. But your doctrine says I was. The only reason I got past the choking (still hesitant to say I'm in the fourth soil) is because I was regenerated through all the soils after number one.

The same Gospel message is preached to all - and only the regenerate heart is able to truly discern and hold fast to the truth unto salvation. What's complicated here?

Because you fail to explain the role of man in deciding if he will get the will to love righteousness and be saved from God. This is the central issue of your doctrine.

...what is the difference in what God does when comparing His work of inviting and His work of regenerating. What you described earlier showed no difference at all - hence the request to clarify.

Then maybe you need to change your definition of 'regenerate' or stop using it where you shouldn't.

You aren't saved just because God enables a person to see the truth. He has to do that first so you can decide to accept that truth.

This is a problem faced in your doctrine alone. In my worldview, the invitation/calling to all is through the preaching of the Gospel - which is rejected completely by all except the few chosen who are regenerated and are saved.

As I say, you don't have to be saved to be able to hear the gospel message. You have to hear the gospel message in order to be saved (Romans 10).

 

[Jethro Bodine]

When is this question being posed?

Before man's regeneration, man's role is to "decide" to want and ask for a new heart (Eze 18:31). Every man "decides" against this.

I'm the only exception?

My will changed to wanting the gospel. It had to in order for me to then ask for God's forgiveness which then in turn saved me. But you have men saved before they're even forgiven of their sins.

I could say much more about this because your doctrine is chock full of all that's wrong with the church's understanding of salvation.

At man's regeneration, man's decision is not a factor at all - as it is wholly dependent on God's mercy alone.

This is what is driving me nuts about your doctrine.

You say man's decision is not a factor at all.

But then you say it is "man's role is to 'decide' to want and ask for a new heart".

But then you'll say, 'God gives them that will'.

But then you'll deny that God is cranking out an assembly line of believers made entirely according to his own choice.

Very, very confusing doctrine.

Define "robot" and state the areas where you hold man to be different from them - and I shall answer this question.

Robot means man's will is not taken into consideration when God elects them. And you're still a robot if election depends on God giving you the will to be elected.

 

[ivdavid]

It shows one of two things:

1) There is no potential to be realized in the soil

2) If there is potential there, God has not realized it yet.

I am in complete agreement with this observation of yours. Where we differ is - your doctrine is built on there still being some good potential to be realized in some men(above case 2) - and mine is built on there being no more good potential to be realized in any man(above case 1), thereby requiring a regeneration/renewal of such good potential itself in man.

The problem is the indoctrination of OSAS gripping the minds of the church today has you unable to see the four soils as progressive as well as indicative of any one moment in time.

If you read in a progressive interpretation into a passage that doesn't lend itself to it, why must others defend their doctrines against such an interpretation? There is nothing in the passage that seems to suggest the evolution of the soil itself - moreover making it inconsistent with the fact that it's the same batch of seed that is sown.

My will changed to wanting the gospel. It had to in order for me to then ask for God's forgiveness which then in turn saved me.

What caused that change? I'm saying that's exactly what happens when God takes out the heart of stone that didn't have this will - and gives a new heart that is now able to discern the truth and chooses to obey.

But you have men saved before they're even forgiven of their sins.

We've been through this already - man is declared saved only after he's sealed by the Holy Spirit (refer to my earlier gift-wrapping analogy on the process of salvation). And if you don't believe in eternal security of the believer( I'd prefer ISAS to OSAS) - how can you refer to any man as "saved" before he's passed on?

You say man's decision is not a factor at all.

Scene 2: The condemned rebel's decision is not a factor at all while he stands before the mercy throne of the sovereign king, right before he is to be hanged. Agree/Disagree?

But then you say it is "man's role is to 'decide' to want and ask for a new heart".

Scene 1: The king decreed that it was this man's role to seek help/cure against his continual evil inclinations to keep rebelling against the king. Given that this man "decided" to continue in his rebellion against the king, the consequence was him being held guilty unto death. This occurs before the above Scene 2. Any confusion here?

But then you'll say, 'God gives them that will'.

Scene 3: The king decides to show mercy. This is after the above Scene 2. And out of such mercy, the king decides to give this condemned rebel who is now a recipient of the king's mercy, the very help/cure that this man should have himself sought after while he was commanded to do so in Scene 1.

But then you'll deny that God is cranking out an assembly line of believers made entirely according to his own choice.

How did the king crank out a free cured man out of an assembly line here?

Very, very confusing doctrine.

Let Romans 14 prevail over us.

 

[ivdavid]

I said they were not saved in the end. But we know they had regenerative growth (signifying salvation) in them.

I was not aware of your position against the doctrine of eternal security.

But, true to the rest of scripture, soil must produce the fruits of the kingdom to the end in order to be saved.

Instead of holding it as a conditional criteria, I would say that the indication/evidence of one truly being "saved" (again, I don't know how you use the term with finality given your position against eternal security) - is that one will be preserved by God unto producing fruits of the kingdom to the end. Doesn't a conditional criteria make it a faith+works salvation instead of a faith alone salvation?

Then maybe you need to change your definition of 'regenerate' or stop using it where you shouldn't.

But this wasn't what I stated at all - it's all what you've stated on the doctrines you hold. You point to God's work-A - and say that's called "inviting". Then you point to what you claim is a totally different God's work-B - and say that's called "regenerating". And then you describe work-A exactly the same as work-B. Why the different terms then? If I describe John immersing a man under water, and call it "baptism" - and then describe John again immersing the same man under water, but call it "immersion" - and keep stating that "baptism" is never the same as "immersion", what sense does that make?

As I say, you don't have to be saved to be able to hear the gospel message. You have to hear the gospel message in order to be saved (Romans 10).

And as I've kept saying, you do have to be regenerated to be able to believe in the gospel message. No such requirements to hearing it though - even the unregenerate are well able to hear the gospel message.