Does Understanding Eschatology Prove You Are Saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

The invitation comes through the message; the gospel of the Kingdom of God invites every man without exception or distinction to HEAR of Christ. Because FAITH comes by hearing, hearing by the Word. The one who hears the message about the spiritual Kingdom of God through Christ and believes (receives faith) through the power of the Spirit is eternally saved by the grace of God. Not according to man's so-called free-will.

I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. This comes across as doublespeak because you first say that "the gospel of the Kingdom of God invites every man without exception or distinction to HEAR of Christ", but then you say people receive faith as if people aren't expected to choose whether to accept or reject the invitation. Who ever heard of an invitation where people had no choice of whether they accepted or rejected it? That makes no sense whatsoever. No, all people are invited because God offers salvation to all people, as Titus 2:11 indicates.

To suggest that people are invited, but have no choice of whether to accept or reject the invitation is just pure nonsense. I can't sugarcoat it. You have the one sending the invitations as being the one deciding who will accept or reject the invitation. Who ever heard of such a thing? It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

All mankind is invited to come, but only those ordained to eternal life shall be eternally saved according to grace through faith, the power of God through His Spirit within.

Why would God invite those who you think are not able to accept the invitation since God alone determines who accepts it or not? That makes His invitation disingenuous. Is that your understadning of God, that He would make a disingenuous offer/invitation to people of salvation and eternal life?

Why invite the whole of humanity if only an elect remnant shall be saved? Because we are commanded to go unto all the world preaching and teaching mankind of the spiritual Kingdom of God that came through Christ.

I'm sorry, but this is just not a convincing argument whatsoever. Especially when you consider that God gets angry at people for rejecting the invitation. If it was His intention that only certain people would "accept" it by His decree, then why would He get angry at anyone for not accepting it? That makes no sense whatsoever and I don't believe you have any kind of reasonable answer to that question in our doctrine.

And we are not told who among the mass of humanity will be given eternal life through faith received by the power of the Holy Spirit.

John 1:12 (KJV) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 1:13 (KJV) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 3:3 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice here that receiving Him (accepting Him, having faith in Him) precedes becoming a born again son of God. Calvinism has it the other way around. First, someone is expected to choose whether to accept (receive) Him or reject Him, and those who accept Him become born again children of God who can then see the kingdom of God and they enter the kingdom of God.

You've shown you understand that spiritually dead man will not believe the gospel until he/she has been born again!

No, I have not shown that! Why do you say this when I never said this? You're better than this. I expect others to be dishonest and try to put words into my mouth, but not you.

Once man possesses the Spirit of Christ (born again) and knows and has entered the spiritual Kingdom of God, they will ALWAYS choose Christ, because they are endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit teaching them of things that can only be discerned through the Spirit. When a man/woman has been born again they will ALWAYS repent of their sins and turn to Christ not by so-called free-will but by the power of God working in them!

I think one problem in this debate is that Calvinists like you don't understand what repentance is. Repentance is the act of changing one's mind about sin. Calvinists like you seem to think that repentance includes the act of changing one's behavior, but it doesn't. Repentance is the changing of one's mind about sin. When God sees that someone has done that, then He gives them the ability, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to start pursuing holiness instead of the sinful style he or she used to live. A person is born again AFTER they have repented of their sins (changed their minds about sin and acknowledged that they are guilty and want to start following Christ instead). The Holy Spirit then helps the person to change their behavior, which they can't do by themselves. But, a person is certainly capable of changing their minds about sin without having to be regenerated first. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, but you change that to say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by regeneration.

They are punished because they were not clothed in the wedding garment. God sees the heart, and knows who among mankind saying they believe, are still natural man that have not become spiritual man. They are bound and cast into outer darkness because they did not hear the gospel of the Kingdom of God by the power of the Holy Spirit and have never been born again.

My goodness. This is just sad. In other words, you say they are punished for no reason because you have them being punished for being who they were naturally while they had no ability to be any other way. How does that make any sense? Who ever heard of people being punished because of being the only way they could possibly be or for doing the only thing they could possibly do? That's nonsense. Why do you think that God would do that? God is love (1 John 4:8). Would a God who is love punish people for no real reason? Of course not. Instead, He punishes people for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness while not having any excuse for doing so, as Paul taught in Romans 1:18-21. But, your doctrine gives people an excuse for suppressing the truth and not believing the gospel, which is that they are not able to believe it since you believe that one can only believe if God gives them faith.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The message about Christ coming with the Kingdom of God invites people without exception or distinction, but only those chosen/ordained unto eternal life will be eternally saved.

So, in your view, it's a disingenuous offer to all but the few who are chosen (Matt 22:14). That is unacceptable to me to make God's invitation/offer disingenuous.

Joshua is NOT addressing people in unbelief. Joshua is warning them to choose the one true God they already know, and don't be like their fathers of old who served the gods of Egypt. If they forsake the LORD and serve strange gods, then God will turn away from them even though He has done them good in giving them the land of promise. This is not free-will offer for them to choose God for salvation. It is a stern warning of what shall happen to them when they too turn to serve other gods and idols as their fathers of old had done.

Look at this objectively without doctrinal bias. Isn't it your belief that those who are saved can't possibly forsake the Lord? You're saying everyone he was addressing had faith and was serving the Lord. It doesn't say that, but let's just assume that for the sake of argument. In your view, those who have faith can't lose their faith since God gives faith to people and doesn't take it away, right? So, what was the point of Joshua warning them to choose to serve the Lord rather than any of the gods their fathers served if it wasn't possible for them to choose to serve any of those gods? How does that make any sense at all? You think he was being disingenuous by warning them about something that couldn't actually happen?

Joshua 24:19-21 (KJV) And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If ye forsake the LORD, and serve strange gods, then he will turn and do you hurt, and consume you, after that he hath done you good. And the people said unto Joshua, Nay; but we will serve the LORD.

Notice he said what would happen if they forsake the Lord. It would make no sense for him to say that if it wasn't actually possible for any of them to forsake the Lord. Yet, you somehow think it wasn't possible, which makes Joshua's warning meaningless and disingenuous.

Where does this faith come from? Who among the human race, physically born natural man without the Spirit of Christ possess faith before being born again?

I'm not sure you even know what faith is. Faith is the act of willingly putting one's trust in something or someone. In this case, in Jesus Christ. Where do you get the idea that someone needs to be born again before putting their trust in Christ? Nowhere is that taught in scripture. Read the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. Can you show me where it says the tax collector was first born again before humbling himself and admitting that he was a sinner while asking God for mercy?

John 3 gives a detailed example using Nicodemus, telling us: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John says that none can know (see) or enter the Kingdom of God until they are born again. But you say faith to be saved comes before man is born again! Man MUST be made spiritually alive (quickened) by the Spirit before they believe (have faith) in the things of God.

Ephesians 2:1 (KJV) And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Colossians 2:13 (KJV) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Your understanding of what it means to be dead in sins is flawed. It means someone is separated from God. Death means separation. When someone dies physically, their soul and spirit separates from their body.

But, Jesus said that sinners are spiritually sick and in need of the physician (Mark 2:16-17) and He calls sinners, which all people are (Romans 3:23) to repentance. Why do you no take that into consideration? You have sinners being spiritually healed (regenerated) before they repent and have faith. But, a sick person is capable of acknowledging that they are sick and can't heal themselves and that only the physician (Jesus) can heal them without having to be healed first.

As I've been telling you all along. The message about Christ, the gospel of the Kingdom of God, preached to those PREDESTINATED according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to His own will, trust in Christ upon hearing through the power of the Holy Spirit. Hearing the gospel, believing and being sealed with the Holy Spirit is the manner in which we obtain everlasting life. Spiritually dead mankind doesn't naturally believe [have faith] upon hearing the gospel. If that were true than everyone hearing the gospel would be saved. Only those hearing the message through the power of the Spirit, sealed in them, believe, repent of their sins and turn to Christ.

Ephesians 1:11-13 (KJV) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

God predestined that those who believe in Christ would be conformed to his image, as Paul wrote about in Romans 8 and would obtain an inheritance (eternal life). He did not predestine who would believe. And notice the order given in the passage you quoted. Faith comes first before we are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Surely, we are born of the Spirit at the same time we are sealed by the Spirit and that happens AFTER we put our trust in Christ.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Absolutely not. I mean, your opinions about and allegations against Calvinism are what they are, and you think they're true, but they are not true at all, but distortions of Calvinism and what he wrote and said. I'm not saying you're lying, but what you have said regarding these things is not true... and thus about what I believe... are distortions of true Calvinism and what I believe.

I disagree completely. You are doing nothing to show otherwise.

Well, no need to rehash what we have talked about at length. I say it wouldn't be a waste of time is there was some humility on your part, but I'm sure you will disregard that, and that's fair enough.

You mistake confidence for a lack of humility. You show confidence in your beliefs as well, so should I accuse you of lacking humility?

Right, because what they said, in restating what I said, is in a very different sense than the sense in which I meant it. Surely you would agree that there are different and even conflicting senses in which something could be said... it is true in a certain sense, but false in another sense, or vice-versa.

But, this is what you resort to every time I refute something you say since you're never completely clear in what you're saying. You just resort to "Yes, but in another sense...". It just makes discussing this with you a waste of time since I can't ever know for sure in what sense you're intending to say something since you never clarify that. With that said, there really is no sense at all in which it's possible for all people to be saved in your view and I'm not sure why you don't acknowledge that.

I've been very clear. And in the places where what we're talking about has occurred, I've said, in effect, "What you have said would be true if I said it in the sense of... "A," but I mean that in the sense of... "B." But still you insist on making it out to be in the sense of "A," and that's what creates this impasse on any particular thing. Like, for example what we were discussing regarding 'cannot,' or not being able to do something... there are two very different senses of not being able to do something, again, as discussed at length.

LOL. This is such an utter waste of time. I have to guess in what sense you might be saying something since you are very bad at being clear about that. Why should I bother then? If I ask you to clarify something, you take offense and act as if you were already clear about it when you were not.

Actually, one believing is not even addressed by Jesus there in his conversation with Nicodemus. And the silence is deafening... as is what we might call the argument from silence. Which should speak volumes to you.

LOL. Speaking of arguments from silence...that's what you're making here. <sigh>

Again I will point out what Jesus said to to different groups of Jews, first in John 8 and then in John 10:

"Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me... If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:43-47)​

​

"...the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name bear witness about Me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, Who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one' " (John 10:24-30).​

None of this addresses why their will was to do their father's desires instead of believing in Christ in the first place. Of course, since they were not among His sheep at the time, they were not believing the things He taught. That has nothing to do with how they became that way in the first place. Do you understand that no one has any excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21)? Those Jews were suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, yet they had no excuse for doing so. They were expected to believe in Him, but they willingly chose not to. Jesus said what He would have done for them if they had been willing to accept Him, which shows that they were expected and required to accept Him, but they decided to reject Him instead.

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Do you think Jesus was not being sincere here when He said what He would have done if only they had been willing to accept Him? Do you think He was just making that up, or was He indicating that He expected and required them to accept Him, but it was their will not to do so, not His. But, in your view, it was not His will for them to accept Him, which contradicts His words in Matthew 23:37-38. If they had no ability to accept Him, as you believe, then there would have been no reason for Him to be angry with them while calling them hypocrites and vipers and such (as He did just before that passage). You try to say that they didn't and couldn't believe because they weren't His sheep, but the reality is that they weren't His sheep because they didn't believe even though Jesus expected them to believe and He had a plan for them if they did accept Him, as evidenced by His words in Matthew 23:37-38.

Also, it's quite possible that some of them He was talking to there later did believe and became His sheep because in Romans 11 Paul indicated that those who were blinded and were cut off back then did not fall, but only stumbled and Paul himself hoped to lead some of them to salvation (Romans 11:11-14).

And... yet again... this is exactly what Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-10...

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

Again, absolutely no mention here of anything ~ anything ~ we have done or believed prior to God's work of "making us alive together with Christ."

Yes, there is. Paul said salvation is by grace THROUGH FAITH. We are made alive together with Christ AFTER putting our faith in Christ. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit AFTER putting our trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:12-13). What isn't our own doing is salvation. If someone accepts a gift that is offered to them, can that person then say that the gift they received was their own doing? No, of course not. So, when someone humbles themselves and accepts God's free offer of salvation, that doesn't mean salvation is their doing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You know, except for what we were doing prior to our being born again... living in the passions of our flesh and carrying out the desires of the body and mind, being by nature the children of wrath that we were (like the rest of mankind). Again, the silence regarding that speaks volumes. Should, anyway...

What speaks volumes to me is your lack of understanding of what it means to be dead in sins. You equate that with having the total inability to repent and believe. Scripture does not teach that. Death is separation. Physical death results in the separation of the soul and spirit from the body. Being dead in sins is to be separated from a personal relationship with God. It has nothing to do with one's abilities.

Jesus taught that sinners are sick, not dead. Not once have I ever seen a Calvinist mention that or address it in any detail. I wonder why...

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. 15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16 And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? 17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Jesus said that sinners are spiritually sick and He calls them to repentance. That included all the sinners He ate with at Levi's house and includes all people, since all people are sinners (Romans 3:23). Do you think any of the sinners at that gathering were not able to repent (or were naturally not willing to repent)? Surely, Jesus did not call them to repentance if they were not able to repent, right? Jesus wouldnt do that. Yet, your doctrine would say that at least some of them were not able to repent. Not true. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) because all people everywhere are able to repent and all people everywhere have no excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-21).

Again, Jesus said that sinners are sick. What does that mean to you? Is a sick person able to recognize and acknowledge that they are sick and can't heal themselves and need the physician to heal them without needing God to cause them to acknowledge that first? Of course. Likewise, all sinners are able to recognize and acknowledge that they are lost sinners and can't save themselves and atone for their own sins and they need Jesus and His shed blood to save them and atone for their sins without having to be given repentance and faith, as you believe. They need to be shown their condition, but once that is shown to people by way of the Spirit speaking to their hearts and them hearing (or reading) the word of God, they must then choose how to respond.

So, unquestionably, our hearing and believing the words of God ~ and in Jesus Himself ~ is not dependent on our believing.

Our believing is not dependent on our believing? Wow. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. In that case, you can't call it "our hearing and believing".

Rather, our believing and obeying and subsequent "good working" is dependent on our being of God, which is only the case if we have been born again of God.

That's not taught anywhere in scripture.

You may notice that nothing I have posted here can be attributed in any way to John Calvin...

Did you say anything he would disagree with? I don't think so.

But, were he here with us, he would certainly argue along the exact same lines as I. <smile>

Uh huh. So, why take offense at being called a Calvinist or my saying you have Calvinist beliefs then? It's just a label to identify what you believe.

You know, I haven't looked at your reply, mainly because I think I know what your answer is. And, if it is what I think it is, then... it should make you rethink some things ~ among other things what you have just said about Jesus's words to Nicodemus in John 3. Which was my objective in asking that question. <smile>

So, was my answer what you thought it would be? I highly doubt it since I think you expected me to say that I pray for people's salvation.

Nope. Really, what I was meaning to do was to get you to, um, get yourself. But if not, then... fair enough. <smile>

You said "Nope" and then proceeded to admit that it was a gotcha question. <sigh>

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hmmmm, okay. Yeah that explains it, I guess.

Explains what exactly?

Well, so how do you reconcile that with, oh, the Lord's prayer, particularly "...Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," and "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"...?

What is there to reconcile? You're not being clear. Please try to be more clear, so I don't have to always guess as to what you might be asking. That is something that Jesus said that those who believe and are saved should pray. What does this have to do with your question about praying for the salvation of those who are not saved?

Regarding what you say here, how do you reconcile that with Jesus's words in Matthew 6:10, 13 and what Paul says in Ephesians 2 as cited above... and just previous to that in Ephesians 1, specifically verses 4-5 ("...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will")?

I mean, no need to answer, really; there is no reconciliation. Or perhaps you think we pre-existed God Himself... <smile>

I have no idea of what you're talking about, so I can't really answer unless you clarify what you're trying to ask here.

Do you think it would make sense for me to pray for God to save certain people when I believe in free will? I really don't know what in the world you are getting at here.

You don't suppose Jesus to be speaking of being born again of the Spirit there, do you? Surely not...

As you said, surely not. Jesus was saying it would have been better had Judas never been physically born. That is obvious.

So, regarding Judas, it would have been better for him to have not even been born to do what he did, even for his own sake, as Judas himself proved in taking his own life; he could not live with what he had done... which, unmistakeably, proves his remorse (to put it mildly). And again, he did it because Satan had entered into him (John 13:2), and in that verse, clearly he was not then of Satan, but... well, possessed, I guess you could say, by Satan... literally, the devil made him do it... which is where we get that saying, actually.

Goodness. You are not being intellectually honest here at all. Everything you're saying is based on extreme doctrinal bias. You are doing everything except addressing what Jesus said, which had nothing to do with saying that the devil made Judas do what he did. Judas made his own choices before the devil ever entered him. Look again at what Jesus actually said and please address it directly instead of trying to find a way around it.

Matthew 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

You are saying nothing about why Jesus said it would have been better had Judas never been born than to betray Him. You think Judas was saved, which means that his soul and spirit are in heaven now and that he will inherit eternal bodily life when Jesus returns. How could him never being born, which would have meant he would not be saved and not have eternal life, be better than being saved and having eternal life? That makes no sense at all. Clearly, Jesus saw Judas as not being saved. Jesus was saying that not being born was better than the fate that Judas had coming to him, which is eternal torment.

Well, with this here, actually, I agree,

Well, hallelujah.

but

Man....

it also makes sense to say that about a saved person, in the sense that they are still a sinner and have the sinful nature still in them, that, even having been born again they are still in this life prone to sin... Even born-again Christians can do terrible, terrible things, and thus be "a devil."

Nope. You are only kidding yourself if you think that Jesus would have called a saved person a devil. No, He absolutely would not have. He surely rebuked His followers at times in order to try to correct them, but He would never call any of His followers a devil. Nope. No chance. And, again, Jesus said it would have been better had Judas not been born. Again, that is not something He ever would have said about someone who was saved. So, I believe you are just denying the obvious here because of doctrinal bias. Everything points to Judas as not being saved at that point when he betrayed Jesus.

I say he could and would... and actually did in implicit ways elsewhere.

No, I don't believe He did. It's strange that you would just say this without even giving one example. Where do you think He ever implied that one of His saved followers was a devil or that He might have called them a devil?

 

[rwb]

Why are you adding something to the text that isn't there? It doesn't say faith comes by hearing and "hearing through the power of the Holy Spirit in them". It says faith comes by hearing and "hearing through the word of God". Paul asks regarding those Israelites who rebelled against God "But, did they not hear?" as if maybe that was the reason they rebelled. But, then he said that they did hear. But, they rejected what they heard.

No different than natural, unbelieving mankind! They heard but did not believe, because they did not have faith of Christ to believe! Yet, faith comes by hearing the Word of God, so why did they not have faith in Christ after hearing the Word of God?

The question I have for you is if God does NOT desire all of humanity to repent and believe, then why does He punish people for not repenting and believing? You think He punishes people for not repenting and believing even when He did not want them to do so? How does that make any sense? And how does it make any sense for Him to punish them when they are not even able to do so (according to your doctrine)?

Where do you find this strange doctrine? God created man "very good", gave them the choice to obey Him and live, or disobey and die! You attempt to force your distorted doctrine onto others, saying God responsible for man, who of their own will freely choose death rather than to submit to God and live. Man chose death, thinking he could be like God! You become very emotional believing God punishes fallen mankind for not repenting and believing because God DOES NOT WANT THEM TO??? You're the only one making this argument, it's not coming from those whom you've labeled Calvinists, even though you prove time and again that you don't really understand Calvinistic doctrine that promotes and defends the Sovereignty of God over the affairs of mankind.

Rather than understanding that if God had not chosen an elect remnant from mankind to be saved, then no man would be saved, and God's creation would be utterly destroyed, you choose to distort and dismiss doctrines that prove your doctrine is based on emotionalism rather than the Sovereignty of God. Because fallen, natural man only has freedom to choose that which is natural to fallen mankind. He has no ability to freely choose that which comes to man through supernatural power of God.

 

[rwb]

Oh, I see — so unless I quote Scripture the way you approve, it magically becomes “meaningless”? That’s convenient. Romans 9:16 is pretty clear without me needing your stamp of approval. But sure, let’s pretend God’s Word needs your personal endorsement before it counts.



Ah yes, the “you’re a cherry picker” accusation — the classic way to avoid Romans 9:16 entirely. Quoting God’s Word isn’t cherry picking just because it doesn’t fit your theology. If you want to claim “free will” trumps God’s sovereign choice, you might want to explain why Paul repeatedly says salvation “depends not on human will” but on God’s mercy. Spoiler: that’s in the Bible too. It's clear that it does not fit your "all" theology, so you accused me of cherry picker. Its you who are wrong to understand what God talked about.



Right — because disagreeing with you automatically equals “no spiritual discernment.” Got it. By that logic, Jesus Himself must have had no discernment every time the Pharisees accused Him of false teaching. It’s almost like disagreement doesn’t automatically prove ignorance… almost.



Oh, the old “this verse doesn’t mean what it says” defense. Jesus literally says, “You did not choose Me, but I chose you,” and somehow that has nothing to do with salvation? Impressive theological gymnastics. If God’s choice applies to apostles but somehow not to salvation, you might need to show where the Bible draws that line — because it sure doesn’t. He spoke to the apostles, he spoke to the Church. Selah.



You don't learn anything spiritually, do you? Using Matthew 22:14, like Judas Iscariot as example, "For many are called, few are chosen." There are going to be unsaved people among Elect in God's congregation for the purpose of building the church together. Your point is?


Ah, so Romans 3:10–12, John 6:44, and Ephesians 2:1–5 are figments of my imagination now? That’s a relief — I was worried my KJV Bible was broken. Good to know we can just declare inconvenient verses “nonexistent” and move on.



Right, because quoting Paul’s teaching on human inability is obviously “ignoring the whole story.” Funny thing though — you accuse me of cherry picking while skipping over the part where Paul says, “No one seeks God.” If “no one” somehow means “lots of people,” I’d love to see that Greek translation.


Yes, I’m sure Paul had “LOL” in mind when he told Timothy to handle Scripture rightly. I’ll admit it — I prefer reading the Bible to laughing at it.


So people “place themselves” in bondage… by being born already under Adam’s sin nature? Romans 5:12 might have a word with you about that! If people are born neutral and only later “become” sinful, then explain why even infants die — the wages of sin — before they’ve made any “choice?” Unless, of course, Scripture means what it says about all being born in sin.



Everyone was already spiritually depraved before they were even born! Didn't you hear what King David wrote?

Psa 58:3
(3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

We were all spiritually depraved—every single one of us—until God, in His mercy, chose to save and seal some. Those whom God did not save remain in their depravity, just as Scripture declares. Romans 1:18–32 isn't describing a neutral starting point; it reveals what happens when God removes His restraining hand in judgment—especially in the last days. As hearts grow darker, sin increases. That’s why we’re now witnessing a rapid surge in open rebellion: rampant homosexuality, proud arrogance, deceit, and even children openly defying their parents. It’s not random—it’s prophetic. We’re watching Romans 1 unfold in real time.



Ah yes, the classic "I'm overwhelmed by facts, so I'm tapping out" exit strategy. Don't worry, I understand — biblical truth can be a lot to handle when it doesn't bend to your flawed free will theology. Take all the time you need. Maybe next round, bring arguments instead of dramatic flair.

I've grown weary of this discussion! Thanks for all the sound biblical contributions to this discussion!

 

[TribulationSigns]

I've grown weary of this discussion! Thanks for all the sound biblical contributions to this discussion!

I understand—same here. The false free will doctrine of 'Spiritual Israelis' isn't even remotely biblical. One final response to him is coming up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No different than natural, unbelieving mankind! They heard but did not believe, because they did not have faith of Christ to believe!

That is not what it says! Not even close. What Paul was indicating is that they (the unbelieving Israelites) did hear the word of God and therefore they have no excuse for not believing it. They can't say they didn't hear it, which would have been an excuse they would make. But, they did.

Yet, faith comes by hearing the Word of God, so why did they not have faith in Christ after hearing the Word of God?

Because people must choose whether or not to believe what they hear. You seem to have the mistaken notion that hearing the word of God automatically results in faith, but Paul clearly said that the unbelieving Israelites he referenced did hear it, but did not believe it. So, you can't try to claim that hearing the word of God automatically results in faith since that is not at all what Paul said.

Where do you find this strange doctrine?

Your doctrine is the strange doctrine and that's why I'm questioning it. As I said, your doctrine has God punishing people for no reason. He punishes people for not believing (Matthew 22:7, John 3:18, 2 Thessalonians 1:7), yet your doctrine says that no one can believe unless God gives them faith. So, your doctrine has God punishing people for not doing something that they are not capable of doing unless He gave them faith. How does that make any sense at all? It clearly does not. But, you, just like all Calvinists, will not address this. But, maybe you can surprise me and tell me how you can reconcile your doctrine with God's wrath and punishment of unbelievers.

God created man "very good", gave them the choice to obey Him and live, or disobey and die!

You think He only gave Adam and Eve that chance? How does that make any sense at all? Why would He not give all people that chance, especially considering that scripture teaches that He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30)?

You attempt to force your distorted doctrine onto others,

You, so far, have done NOTHING to refute my supposed "distorted doctrine", so this statement means nothing to me. You don't seem to realize how weak your arguments are.

saying God responsible for man, who of their own will freely choose death rather than to submit to God and live.

That is what people choose, but they don't realize that they don't just cease to exist when they die. What they are choosing, in their minds, is that they'd rather cease to exist than submit to God. Why are you not able to understand that? Have you ever read Romans 1:18-32? Paul talks about people choosing to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and to not glorify God as God and being thankful to Him despite that being made plain to them and they have no excuse for that. Your doctrine gives them an excuse because it says they have no choice but to suppress the truth and not glorify God. But, they do have a choice or else Paul wouldn't say they have no excuse for suppressing the truth and not glorifying God.

Man chose death, thinking he could be like God!

You are talking about Adam and Eve here. Yes, they were deceived into thinking that they could be like God and there are some still today who believe that, but most unbelievers think they will cease to exist or will have some kind of afterlife that does not line up with what the Bible teaches.

You become very emotional believing God punishes fallen mankind for not repenting and believing because God DOES NOT WANT THEM TO???

I'm not being emotional. You are not being honest. Are you telling me that you believe that God DOES want all of fallen mankind to repent and believe? If so, how can you expect me to believe that when, at the same time, you believe that no one can repent and believe unless God gives them repentance and faith?

You're the only one making this argument, it's not coming from those whom you've labeled Calvinists, even though you prove time and again that you don't really understand Calvinistic doctrine that promotes and defends the Sovereignty of God over the affairs of mankind.

You apparently don't understand what your Calvinist doctrine implies. Every time I show a Calvinist the implications of their beliefs, they protest. So, this is nothing new. You can't deny what I'm saying. You know you can't try to say that you believe that God wants everyone to repent and believe when you believe that is completely up to Him. In that case, everyone would repent and believe, but that is obviously not the case.

Rather than understanding that if God had not chosen an elect remnant from mankind to be saved, then no man would be saved, and God's creation would be utterly destroyed, you choose to distort and dismiss doctrines that prove your doctrine is based on emotionalism rather than the Sovereignty of God.

This is nothing more than a false accusation. You are showing that you don't understand what I believe. I believe that God sovereignly chose to make all people responsible to choose to repent and believe or not. How does that take away from His sovereignty in any way, shape or form if that is what He decided? It doesn't. So, your claim is absolutely false and misrepresents what I believe. I believe in God's sovereignty every bit as much as you do, but I have a different understanding of it than you do.

Because fallen, natural man only has freedom to choose that which is natural to fallen mankind. He has no ability to freely choose that which comes to man through supernatural power of God.

It can't be natural to fallen mankind to suppress the truth in unrighteousness after becoming aware of it or else Paul wouldn't have said that no one has an excuse for doing that (Romans 1:18-21). You saying that man has no ability to freely choose to repent and believe gives man an excuse for not doing so (because he can't), but Paul said there is no excuse. Your doctrine blatantly contradicts Romans 1:18-32.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand—same here. The false free will doctrine of 'Spiritual Israelis' isn't even remotely biblical. One final response to him is coming up.

You guys are weary of the discussion because you're frustrated at not being able to refute my arguments. Your arguments have been incredibly weak, yet here you are trying to say my doctrine "isn't even remotely biblical"? You have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. Absolutely NOTHING.

You think it's biblical to give man an excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness by saying they are born doing so and can't help themselves but to do so despite Paul saying man has no excuse for that (Romans 1:18-21). I've never seen any Calvinist come anywhere near giving a reasonable and convincing explanation for how to reconcile their doctrine with Romans 1:18-32. No Calvinists can bring themselves to admit that they give man an excuse for suppressing the truth while exchanging it for a lie and rejecting God despite scripture saying they have no excuse.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I've grown weary of this discussion! Thanks for all the sound biblical contributions to this discussion!

You think he has made sound biblical contributions only because you agree with his doctrine. I find his arguments to be very weak. And, keep in mind that you're talking about someone who denies the existence of Satan as an actual spirit being who tried to deceive Jesus in the desert for 40 days and nights and who goes around trying to deceive anyone he can. He says the term Satan or the devil refers to man's sinful desires. So, if you want to think that such a person is capable of sound biblical contributions, that's your choice, but I find many of his arguments about various things to be unbiblical.

 

[TribulationSigns]

That makes no sense whatsoever. No, all people are invited because God offers salvation to all people, as Titus 2:11 indicates.

False. God did not offer salvation to all people. You got the "all" part under wrong lens. It is a lie from the pit of hell.

To suggest that people are invited, but have no choice of whether to accept or reject the invitation is just pure nonsense. I can't sugarcoat it. You have the one sending the invitations as being the one deciding who will accept or reject the invitation. Who ever heard of such a thing? It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Where does Scripture say that? You are making things up and that is not how Christianity works. We follow the Scriptures, not what we think. The fact is, if Christ chooses us, he will never leave us. If it was by our own free will, then he could leave us at any time. On the contrary, he moves us to do HIS WILL. I am glad that my God is sovereign and not helpless as your god is.

Philippians 2:13
(13) "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Take this verse, study it, and then maybe you might come to the truth. God is not helpless waiting on us to freely accept or reject him. No, He moves us to do his will. This is the gospel of Christ, not free will!

Hebrews 13:20-21
(20) "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

This is how the gospel of Christ is different from the gospel of Judaism or the gospel of Arminianism or the gospel of works. Because they are all the same false teachings. Period. The question, "do you 'accept' or 'receive' Christ as Lord" is an issue that is relatively serious. Salvation is a FREE GIFT, so there's nothing to accept or reject. One has no ability to accept or reject it because it's either given to you or it is not. Selah

One last thing, you insisted that Christ died for ALL MEN, and sent an invitation for Salvation to ALL MEN. Sounds like He knows who they are, right? Yet in the end, He said He does not know them?

Mat 25:11-12
(11) Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
(12) But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

Luk 13:25-27
(25) When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
(26) Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.
(27) But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Here, God is speaking about professed believers within His congregation who did not do the will of the Father. These are the ones who “accepted” the invitations, were baptized with water, and actively participated in the church—yet their hearts were far from Him. They never truly had a relationship with Him, so God says, “I never knew you.”

It is the same with the rest of the unsaved in the world. My point is this: God does not give an open invitation or offer salvation to all humanity. Many are not chosen and therefore are never moved to do the will of God. Salvation is given only to the chosen Elect—never based on whether they “accept” an invitation. That is impossible. Unless God moves upon them, granting repentance and softening their hardened hearts, they will never receive it or obey the Father. Salvation is a free gift, -- given by God’s sovereign choice, not man’s decision. He will make sure every man he chooses ends up doing His will. That is salvation! This is why He is long-suffering that all Elect come to repentance. After that, the time of the end comes for the judgment of the unfaithful church (against professed christians and false prophets and christs) for a short season and then the unsaved world at the Second Coming.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You guys are weary of the discussion because you're frustrated at not being able to refute my arguments.

Weary? At your arguments? That’s adorable. We’re not weary because we can’t refute you—we’re weary because listening to you is like watching someone proudly lose a chess game in four moves and then declare themselves a grandmaster.

Your arguments have been incredibly weak, yet here you are trying to say my doctrine "isn't even remotely biblical"? You have done NOTHING to prove otherwise. Absolutely NOTHING.

Could it be because you refuse to receive the love of the Truth—clinging instead to a false doctrine straight from the pit. Remember Revelation 13? The beast will be allowed to overcome the faithful witnesses and silence them with false doctrines? Hmm… starting to see the pattern here?

You think it's biblical to give man an excuse for suppressing the truth in unrighteousness by saying they are born doing so and can't help themselves but to do so despite Paul saying man has no excuse for that (Romans 1:18-21).

Your wacko interpretation is way off. You’re the one who mocked God by claiming babies can’t lie because they can’t speak? Really? That’s your argument? You’re a joker. You clearly lack understanding. Psalm 58:3 doesn’t have to say “babies speak lies” word for word—it teaches that sin and deceit are inherent from the very start of life. Hello? Time to grow up and actually read the text and gain understanding.

I've never seen any Calvinist come anywhere near giving a reasonable and convincing explanation for how to reconcile their doctrine with Romans 1:18-32.

I did! And I’m not even a Calvinist. I am CHRISTian. It's just that Calvin interpreted the Scripture correctly! The problem is you refuse to receive the love of the Truth because you’re too busy being brainwashed by your own free will doctrine. Simple as that. All you offered were long, emotional rants against me and RWB—rants that accomplish nothing except twisting God’s Word beyond recognition.

 

[TribulationSigns]

You think he has made sound biblical contributions only because you agree with his doctrine. I find his arguments to be very weak. And, keep in mind that you're talking about someone who denies the existence of Satan as an actual spirit being who tried to deceive Jesus in the desert for 40 days and nights and who goes around trying to deceive anyone he can. He says the term Satan or the devil refers to man's sinful desires. So, if you want to think that such a person is capable of sound biblical contributions, that's your choice, but I find many of his arguments about various things to be unbiblical.

Still wrestling with my doctrine on Satan? LOL.

I haven’t even given you the full Scriptural explanation on Lucifer/Satan yet — just a small preview — and you already went into full meltdown mode without actually grasping what I said. Same pattern as “Sovereign Grace/Free Will” and your beloved treasured Temple-and-city-in-70AD narrative (even while you’re busy opposing the Preterists' interpretations here). Amusing, really.

Here’s the thing: you still don’t get that Satan is the spirit of disobedience, which is the spirit of man, not some “actual created spiritual being” like your Sunday School flannel board taught you. But no worries, I’m not unpacking my full doctrine here. I’m saving that for my book, my website, and my YouTube channel launch.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

False. God did not offer salvation to all people. You got the "all" part under wrong lens. It is a lie from the pit of hell.

You continue to make claims that you can't back up. I can't take that seriously.

You clearly have no understanding of the parable of the wedding invitation in Matthew 22:1-13. In that parable Jesus figuratively describes the gospel being offered to all people by way of a wedding invitation made by a king for his son. The king represents God the Father and the son obviously represents the Son of God, Jesus Christ. The wedding invitation first goes out locally and is given out by the king's servants, but those who were invited rejected the invitation and were not willing to come. After multiple attempts to convince those invited to attend, the king had enough of their refusals to come and ends up destroying them and their city. All of that represents how the gospel was first preached to the Jews who, for the most part, rejected it (not all, of course). God ended up destroying those unbelieving Jews and their city.

You can't try to tell me that those who rejected the wedding invitation were not being genuinely offered salvation. If they weren't being given a genuine invitation/offer that they were expected to accept, then there would be no reason for the king to become so angry that He killed them and destroyed their city (Matthew 22:7). Who ever heard of someone getting angry at people for rejecting something that they couldn't help but to reject? That would be completely nonsensical. So, they had the ability to accept the invitation, but chose to reject it and that resulted in the king (God the Father) being angry at them. In your doctrine, there's no explanation for why He was angry at them.

After the invitations were mostly rejected by those who they first went to in Israel, the invitations started going out "into the highways", which represents the Gentile nations. Some accept and some reject the invitation, but you can't say that those who reject it (or don't properly accept it like the person who came but didn't have on the proper wedding garments) aren't given a genuine offer/invitation.

Where does Scripture say that?

In the parable I referenced. Is Matthew 22:1-13 in your Bible?

You are making things up and that is not how Christianity works.

I'm not making up Matthew 22:1-13. It's there. But, maybe it's somehow missing from your Bible? Is Titus 2:11 in your Bible? It says that God graciously offers salvation to all people.

We follow the Scriptures, not what we think.

When it comes to this particular topic, you clearly do not.

The fact is, if Christ chooses us, he will never leave us.

Right. He would never leave us. But scripture warns us about leaving Him.

Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. 14 For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,

If it was by our own free will, then he could leave us at any time. On the contrary, he moves us to do HIS WILL.

He doesn't move (force, cause) anyone to do anything against their will. He makes people responsible to choose.

Jesus said He does not call the righteous, but calls all sinners to repentance and He says they are spiritually sick and in need of the physician, which is Him (Mark 2:16-17). You contradict that by saying He only calls the righteous (the elect) while leaving sinners in their sins with supposedly not ability to repent while left to a destination of eternal torment.

I am glad that my God is sovereign and not helpless as your god is.

There it is. You crossed the line here, buddy. You are basically saying you think I'm not saved because you are saying my God (who you call "god") is not your God, which you believe is the God of the Bible. But, my God is the God of the Bible. While I obviously believe that you distort God's character, I would never accuse you of having a different god like you're doing here to me. May God have mercy on your soul for judging me like this. With the measure you use to judge others, the same measure will be used to judge you (Matthew 7:1-2).

Philippians 2:13
(13) "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Take this verse, study it, and then maybe you might come to the truth. God is not helpless waiting on us to freely accept or reject him. No, He moves us to do his will. This is the gospel of Christ, not free will!

You say this while ignoring the MANY scriptures I have brought to your attention that your doctrine contradicts. Your response? You either ignore them completely or you twist them to fit your doctrine. You need to get off your high horse and start dealing with scripture honestly yourself instead of accusing others of not doing so.

You always cherry pick scripture while ignoring the rest so that you end up with only part of the story instead of the whole story. Yes, God works in us to do His good pleasure, but MANY other scriptures talks about our responsibility to submit to Him, which doesn't just happen automatically. You can't draw conclusions from these cherry picked scriptures while ignoring all of the scriptures which contradict the conclusions you're drawing. You need to look at ALL of scripture HONESTLY without twisting it the way you do (all people = the elect and all that nonsense).

This is how the gospel of Christ is different from the gospel of Judaism or the gospel of Arminianism or the gospel of works. Because they are all the same false teachings. Period.

You are revealing your extreme ignorance here. I'm not Arminian. They believe in total depravity. I do not. And, if they believe in a gospel of good works, I disagree with them about that as well. I'm not so sure they believe that, though. Regardless, I do NOT believe in a gospel of works. That is a LIE. You have proven multiple times that you have no conscience about LYING.

I believe that God requires people to humble themselves and admit that they are lost sinners who need His mercy and forgiveness (see Luke 18:9-14) in order to receive His mercy and forgiveness. What does that have to do with works? What works do you think I'm saying are necessary to be saved? I believe that man can't save himself and needs Jesus to save him instead and he has to admit that to God. How is that a gospel of works? You have no idea of what you're talking about. Absolutely none. The only thing you are able to do is misrepresent what I believe. You certainly have done nothing to refute it.

The question, "do you 'accept' or 'receive' Christ as Lord" is an issue that is relatively serious.

LOL. Only "relatively serious"? It's the different between eternal life and eternal torment. That's all.

Salvation is a FREE GIFT, so there's nothing to accept or reject.

A free gift that God offers to all people, as scriptures like Titus 2:11 and Matthew 22:1-13 indicate. How one interprets Jesus's parables is always very telling about that person's level of spiritual discernment. It's very clear to me that you have no understanding whatsoever of the parable Jesus taught in Matthew 22:1-13.

One has no ability to accept or reject it because it's either given to you or it is not. Selah

That's not taught in scripture. You are just making things up. In Matthew 22:1-13, Jesus portrayed salvation in relation to a wedding INVITATION. An INVITATION is something that people have to choose to either accept or reject.

One last thing, you insisted that Christ died for ALL MEN, and sent an invitation for Salvation to ALL MEN. Sounds like He knows who they are, right? Yet in the end, He said He does not know them?

Mat 25:11-12
(11) Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.
(12) But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

LOL. Yet again you show your ignorance and lack of discernment. He is not saying there that He literally doesn't know who they are. LOL. Wow. Unbelievable. No, He is saying He does not know them personally in terms of not having a personal spiritual relationship with them. Jesus is God. He knows who everyone is. Hello? This is one of the worst cases of misinterpreting scripture that I've ever seen. How can you think that Jesus would not know who someone is when He is God and created everyone?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Weary? At your arguments? That’s adorable.

Why else do you want to end the discussion? You are struggling mightily to address my arguments. You're resorting to making things up. You're revealing your lack of discernment by thinking that when Jesus tells people He doesn't know them at the judgment, that it means He literally doesn't know who they are. LOL. Yes, I think you are getting weary of trying to come up with ways around my arguments.

We’re not weary because we can’t refute you—we’re weary because listening to you is like watching someone proudly lose a chess game in four moves and then declare themselves a grandmaster.

Your arguments have been very weak and here you are trying to declare victory in the debate. Embarrassing (for you).

Could it be because you refuse to receive the love of the Truth—clinging instead to a false doctrine straight from the pit.

Absolutely not. Who are you to tell me about my love of the Truth? Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6) and I love Him more than anyone or anything in the world. You are way out of line here. The gospel truth is that Jesus is the way to salvation which He made possible by way of His death and resurrection. Who are you to say I don't love that and am not receiving that? You are putting yourself in danger here by judging me like this. May God have mercy on your soul for doing that.

Remember Revelation 13? The beast will be allowed to overcome the faithful witnesses and silence them with false doctrines? Hmm… starting to see the pattern here?

I am not denying Jesus or the gospel, so that is irrelevant to me. You have lost your mind and are completely out of control at this point. You seem completely unable to have an adult discussion.

Your wacko interpretation is way off.

Yet, you are doing NOTHING to refute it. You'd think if my interpretation was "wacko", you'd have no trouble refuting it, but you're having all kinds of trouble trying to do so. You're coming up with some of the most ridiculous interpretations I've ever seen. Thinking that those Jesus say He doesn't know at the judgment means He literally doesn't know who they are? LOL. You can't possible interpret scripture worse than that.

You’re the one who mocked God by claiming babies can’t lie because they can’t speak? Really? That’s your argument? You’re a joker.

Say what now? Are you claiming that babies can lie?

You clearly lack understanding. Psalm 58:3 doesn’t have to say “babies speak lies” word for word—it teaches that sin and deceit are inherent from the very start of life. Hello? Time to grow up and actually read the text and gain understanding.

That means everyone will eventually sin, but they don't start sinning right from birth. Hello? Paul taught that he didn't become dead in sins until he knew what sin was because of the law (Romans 7:7-11). But, you think people are born dead in their sins instead because you cherry pick scripture and don't take all of scripture into account before drawing conclusions.

And I’m not even a Calvinist. I am CHRISTian. It's just that Calvin interpreted the Scripture correctly!

LOL. Hello? A Calvinist is defined as a Christian who agrees with Calvin's doctrines relating to salvatoin. That's you. You are a Calvinist. But, also a Christian. But, you obviously don't think I'm a Christan because you said I have a different "god" than you. You have no idea what you're doing by judging me like that.

The problem is you refuse to receive the love of the Truth

What in the world are you talking about here? Do you understand that those who don't receive the love of the truth are not saved? Why in the world are you making yourself God and condemning me? Jesus is the Judge (John 5:22), not you. The Truth is Jesus Himself (John 14:6) and the gospel is the truth which says that one must repent and believe in Christ and in His death and resurrection in order to be saved. I do believe in Christ and His death and resurretion, so what truth do you think I'm not receiving?

because you’re too busy being brainwashed by your own free will doctrine. Simple as that. All you offered were long, emotional rants against me and RWB—rants that accomplish nothing except twisting God’s Word beyond recognition.

I am backing up my beliefs with scripture. Scripture that you are twisting to fit your doctrine instead of accepting what it actually teaches.

 

[TribulationSigns]

How can you think that Jesus would not know who someone is when He is God and created everyone?

I’m not going to engage with your worthless, endless emotional rants, but I will address that last sentence. You have misunderstood. When Jesus says in Matthew 7:23, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness,” it is not about lacking information—He is God and knows all things (Psalm 139:1-4). It is about a covenant relationship that never existed between Him and people not chosen by Him.

God does not “know” them in the saving sense because He never chose them to receive the gift of salvation (Ephesians 1:4-5; Romans 9:15-18). They were never drawn to Christ by the Father (John 6:44), never regenerated, never given spiritual life, and thus remain dead in their sins (Ephesians 2:1-3). It is not because they received the invitation and have a free will to accept or reject it. They can't - - not when they were spiritually dead and under bondage of the Devil. God did not prepare their hearts to receive it.

You need to consider this: the Scripture is clear—God is under no obligation to offer salvation to everyone (Romans 9:20-23). He has mercy on whom He wills, and hardens whom He wills. That is His sovereign right as Creator. Get it! The problem is that you use all other Scripture with the word "all", thinking God is talking about every man on Earth having the opportunity to accept or reject by their own free will instead of all Elect from every nation before the foundation of the world.

Case closed. I am done with this subject.

 

[PinSeeker]

I disagree completely.

Fair enough.

I can't ever know for sure in what sense you're intending to say something...

It's not about me, SI. It's about you, and the sense in which you're saying some things. What I often intend is for you rethink some of your statements and assertions. But I can't make you do that...

...there really is no sense at all in which it's possible for all people to be saved in your view...

In one sense, it is absolutely possible. But in another, different sense, it is not. And as I have said, this is exactly what Jesus said, in response to his disciples asking Him, "Who then can be saved?" He looked at them ~ and there's much to be said even about that; He was making to a very pointed assertion ~ and replied, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26)... "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God" (Mark 10:27)... "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke 18:27).

I have to guess in what sense you might be saying something...

You mean you have to struggle to find some way to refute it...

Why should I bother then?

Good question. <smile>

If I ask you to clarify something, you take offense and act as if you were already clear about it when you were not.

I'm not even slightly offended.

None of this addresses why their will was to do their father's desires instead of believing in Christ in the first place.

Oh you want to talk about that. Well, okay... as if we haven't before... <smile> So, in answer to this, I'll ask you this: If we as Christians now, in the words of Paul in Romans 6:16, present ourselves as obedient slaves to God, then... who did we present ourselves as obedient slaves to (even probably not realizing it) before we were born again of the Spirit and thus of God (which is why we present ourselves as obedient slaves to the Father)? Now, in answering that, remember, Paul says in Ephesians 2:1-3 that we were "dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind"... And now back to Romans 5, where Paul says "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"...

Of course, since they were not among His sheep at the time, they were not believing the things He taught.

He said they do not believe because were not among His sheep, they were not given to Him by the Father

We are made alive together with Christ AFTER putting our faith in Chirst.

Two things (again):

• Regarding what Paul says in Ephesians 2, namely, "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ~ by grace you have been saved ~ and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Faith, SI, cannot be separated back out from that last little sentence, which is what one would be doing if he were to say that he is the manufacturer of his own faith... not to mention that to do so would be to make faith out to be a work.
• Faith is God's assurance, and conviction by the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 11:1). Yes, we have it and it is ours once we are given it by God ~ this assurance that our sins are forgiven and we have eternal life, and conviction of our sin by the Holy Spirit and that our salvation is in Jesus; we then "see" with our heart ~ but before that, we cannot... because we don't have it. We once were blind, but now we see...

Ah, well, three...

• Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit (Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12). Yes, I'm aware of our previous "conversation," but it is what it is. And the gifts of the Spirit are irrevocable (Romans 11).

We are sealed by the Holy Spirit AFTER putting our trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:12-13).

I don't have any problem with this statement, but ~ in direct reference to verse 13 there ~ in effect you're saying that "because (we) heard the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation, and believed in Him..." That's not what it says, SI. Close, but it says, "when (we) heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him...." So at the same time (not really after)... and the former (our being sealed by the Spirit) not the result of our having believed, but really a co-occurrence. Again, the Spirit does not "make us believe," but we do believe because of the Spirit's work in us, which, again, is what Paul says in Philippians 2:13, that we "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."

What isn't our own doing is salvation.

Right. But still... <smile>

If someone accepts a gift that is offered to them, can that person then say that the gift they received was their own doing?

Yet again... It's not a matter of the will, but the heart. If God gives one a new heart ~ takes out the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 11 and 36 again), gives that person a new spirit, puts His Spirit in that person ~ then belief in the Lord will follow.

You equate that with having the total inability to repent and believe.

No, I don't. You have made this accusation many times, and I have refuted it many times. Total depravity is not equivalent with or even remotely the same as "total inability." Or, just to use the term 'depravity.' total depravity is not even remotely the same thing as utter depravity.

Jesus taught that sinners are sick, not dead.

Two things to this:

• Who is the Physician? <smile> Do we heal ourselves? <smile>

Oh, I guess we ask to be healed... So, that brings me immediately to the second thing:

• So if we are dead in our trespasses and sin, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, living in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and by nature ~ which is from birth ~ children of wrath, like the rest of mankind, then... will we? So yeah, was Paul was lying in Ephesians 2:1-3? Oh, I'm remembering your favorite GIF again, but I'll not post it again here... <smile>

Not once have I ever seen a Calvinist mention that or address it in any detail.

Well, now you have. But no real detail needed...

TBC...

 

[PinSeeker]

From above...

Is a sick person able to recognize and acknowledge that they are sick and can't heal themselves and need the physician to heal them...

An alcoholic very often will not recognize or acknowledge that he or she is an alcoholic... And in the case of being dead in sin, no.

Our believing is not dependent on our believing?

LOL! I don't even know how you get that out of what I said... but don't really care... <smile> But, well, par for the course, really... <smile>

That's not taught anywhere in scripture.

It is. "...by grace you have been saved through faith... For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10). Our good works are the direct result of our having been born again.

Did you say anything he would disagree with?

No, but again, the issue is what you think ~ erroneously ~ he said.

Uh huh. So, why take offense at being called a Calvinist or my saying you have Calvinist beliefs then?

I don't care what you call me, and yes, I absolutely do have Calvinist beliefs. So nothing for me to be offended at... What I continue to be astounded at is that you keep attributing beliefs to me ~ and all Calvinists ~ that are not Calvinist by any stretch. But you know, you do you. <smile>

It's just a label to identify what you believe.

Sure. I've said that, too, many times. And... you're Arminian in your beliefs. <smile>

TBC...

 

[TribulationSigns]

Say what now? Are you claiming that babies can lie?

Again, you don't get it.

That means everyone will eventually sin, but they don't start sinning right from birth. Hello? Paul taught that he didn't become dead in sins until he knew what sin was because of the law (Romans 7:7-11).

LOL. I knew you might come up with a false interpretation of Romans 7:7-11. So for the sake of readers, I will response this one time.

Romans 7:7-11 talks about how sin is recognized through the law. Paul says, basically, “I wouldn’t have known what coveting was if the law hadn’t said, ‘You shall not covet.’” The law reveals what sin is by defining it, making people aware that certain acts are sinful.

But does that mean a person is not guilty of sin until they understand the law or recognize that they broke it? No, it doesn’t!!

Romans 7:7-11 teaches that the law makes us aware of sin, but sin was already present and active. The law exposes sin’s nature, but sin exists apart from our conscious knowledge of the law. Selah!

Psa 58:3-4
(3) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
(4) Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

David says babies are already sinners, even before birth, showing sin’s presence before full understanding. It is becasue we all receive the curse of sin from Adam and Eve before we were even born! Selah!

Consider the verses wisely:

Psa 51:5
(5) Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Rom 3:25
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

See? The above verses teach that all humans inherit a sinful nature. This means we are spiritually dead in sin from birth, regardless of whether we understand the law or not. Selah!

What you fail to understand what Romans 7:7-11 really saying. It is the law that defines sin and brings conscious awareness of specific sins (like coveting). Before law, sin was still there but more hidden or "dead" without the law's exposure. So the law serves to "reveal sin", to increase accountability and to lead to conviction. Simple as that!

So you are wrong, being "dead in sins" does NOT require prior knowledge of the law or conscious awareness of sin. Sin is an inherent condition from birth, as David notes, and Paul affirms in other passages, such as Ephesians 2:1! Romans 7:7-11 carries the law reveals sin, but does not create sin or the condition of being sinful. Selah!

If you insist a man, or even baby, cannot be “dead in sins” until they know the law, you are the one who is misunderstanding the purpose of the law in Romans 7. The law exposes sin and makes us aware of it, but sin and death in sin precede that awareness.

Checkmate, so-called grandmaster.