Does Understanding Eschatology Prove You Are Saved?

[Spiritual Israelite]

I don't purposely tell untruths, Spiritual Israelite. Now, I could say what you say here is a lie, but I think you truly believe it, which just makes you, in this case, wrong.

I don't know how else to see it when you try to claim you believe in free will and try to say you think it's possible for all to be saved and things like that which don't line up with your overall beliefs.

Either that or this is just another feeble effort to piss me off... <smile>

If that was my intention, which it was not, then it clearly couldn't be considered feeble, since you clearly are p***ed off or else you wouldn't have used those words.

Actually, 'wrong' is technically incorrect... you're just being... indignant. Which is a often just a defense mechanism... But very often, you avoid the points that I make... You do.

I do not. Here's another lie from you.

You have. You have denied, many times, that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again. And you're not the only one, if that makes you feel any better... <smile> But if you are now agreeing, then... good. <smile>

For supposedly not being a liar, you sure do lie a lot. I have NEVER denied "that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again.". Why would I do that when Ephesians 2:8-10 makes it clear that our good works are what God prepares for us AFTER we are saved by grace through faith and not by works? Show me one time I have ever denied "that our good works are the result of our having been saved, our having been born again.". If you're going to make this claim, you need to back it up or shut up.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It’s clear you’re missing the context regarding adoption, the covenants, “not all Israel which are of Israel,” the children of the promise, and the purpose of election. All of these refer to God’s eternal plan. God chose the elder to serve the younger because He had chosen Jacob for the purpose of election from the beginning of time. This is not about the nation of Israel as a political entity — it’s about God’s sovereign choice in salvation history.



It’s evident you don’t grasp the covenant relationship and the long, repeated history of God’s own people turning against Him time and again. These are the external, corporate members of the kingdom—those who are part of the visible community, yet not truly of the faith.



So?

1Jn 2:18-19
(18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
(19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

In this passage, God is speaking about those who were among us—people who claimed to be Christians—yet carried the spirit of antichrist. They were never truly part of Christ’s body. These are the external believers, present in the visible church but not born of God. Selah.


Wrong. Scripture makes a clear distinction:

1. Professing Christians – the visible church; many are called but not truly saved.
2. Elect Christians – the true body of Christ; few are chosen.
3. The Unsaved outside God’s congregation – the Gentiles in unbelief.

Jesus’ own parables (e.g., wheat and tares, sheep and goats) show that within the visible community, there are both genuine believers and impostors. Denying this distinction is what truly butchers Scripture.




Really? Have you ever read the Scripture regarding "God's people"

Isa 1:2-4
(2) Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
(3) The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.
(4) Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

This passage directly says that His people—Israel—were raised and cared for by Him, yet still turned away in rebellion.

Eze 2:3
(3) And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

Neh 9:26
(26) Nevertheless they were disobedient, and rebelled against thee, and cast thy law behind their backs, and slew thy prophets which testified against them to turn them to thee, and they wrought great provocations.

Psa 78:56
(56) Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:

Jer 2:11
(11) Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit.

Jer 2:13
(13) For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.
In the New Testament....

Heb 10:30
(30) For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

Obviously, God's judgment will come against those in the Christian assembly! Especially those who have willfully sin and rebel AFTER receiving the knowledge of the Truth.

Didn't you realize that God must just His House first?

1Pe 4:17
(17) For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

1 Peter 4:17 says that judgment begins at the house of God. Why? Because within His own house there are unsaved, external people—those who are part of the visible church but not truly His. This is where false prophets and false christs operate. Selah. Yes, there are external believers within His Church.




LOL. Exactly! They’re professing believers in name only—hypocrites who wear a religious mask. They are the false prophets and false christs, along with all those deceived by them. Hello? That’s precisely why Jesus condemned them.



Duh. Of course, we are His children—the ones truly chosen by Christ through faith. But don’t pretend all who claim to be God’s people are saved. There have always been two groups within His congregation—true believers and mere professors. That’s been clear since the Old Testament. Wake up.


Yes, they were removed! You’re completely missing the point. God stripped the scribes and Pharisees of their authority and kingdom status—cutting them off from His kingdom entirely. That’s exactly how the spirit of Satan was cast out.


Now, salvation and kingdom authority rest solely with the New Testament congregation—the church Christ established. While many are called, only a remnant are truly saved. Among them are external believers who infiltrate and work within the Elect until the end, when they will face judgment—just as Christ judged the Old Testament congregation.


Selah.




Actually, you’re the one who desperately needs to read James 1:5-7—clearly, you don’t understand how the covenant relationship works in God’s Kingdom. But don’t worry, I’m already miles ahead of you on this. Try catching up sometime.



Huh? And what exactly does that have to do with dispensationalism? Sounds like just another baseless label tossed out without understanding.


Of course, you’ve misunderstood. When you say “God’s people,” you’re assuming it only means those who are saved and chosen—but Scripture shows there’s more nuance than that.



No unsaved people—professed believers or not—are truly God’s people? That’s a naïve oversimplification. I’ve already shown you the verses that prove otherwise. You seriously need to wake up and smell some discerning coffee!


That wasn’t the Holy Spirit speaking—it was your pride blocking you from being teachable and accepting the truth I shared.


The Lord judges, and I’m perfectly comfortable leaving it in His hands.



Educate yourself

What a little child you are with your childish comments (duh, etc.). You are like a dispensationalist in that you try to create a third group of people besides saved and lost. Jesus said those who are not with Him are against Him (Matthew 12:30). Everyone is either with Him (saved) or against Him (lost). This "visible church" and "true body of Christ" nonsense comes from your imagination. Jesus nor any of the NT authors ever put people into groups the way you do. Those who claim to be Christians, but are not, are part of those who are against Christ (unsaved). There is no basis for trying to put them into a separate group from the rest of unsaved people. That's what dispensationalists do in their effort to try to make it as if God's people are the church and Israel. No, God's people are the church. Period. The true church made up only of true believers.

 

[TribulationSigns]

What a little child you are with your childish comments (duh, etc.). You are like a dispensationalist in that you try to create a third group of people besides saved and lost. Jesus said those who are not with Him are against Him (Matthew 12:30). Everyone is either with Him (saved) or against Him (lost). This "visible church" and "true body of Christ" nonsense comes from your imagination. Jesus nor any of the NT authors ever put people into groups the way you do. Those who claim to be Christians, but are not, are part of those who are against Christ (unsaved). There is no basis for trying to put them into a separate group from the rest of unsaved people. That's what dispensationalists do in their effort to try to make it as if God's people are the church and Israel. No, God's people are the church. Period. The true church made up only of true believers.

Wow, thanks for the Bible 101 refresher—Matthew 12:30, got it. But let’s slow down before you start assigning “childish” labels and dispensing theological pop quizzes. The idea that everyone’s either saved or lost with no nuance is a nice, neat little box—but sadly, the Bible doesn’t always play along with such black-and-white thinking.

The distinction between the visible church and the true body of Christ isn’t some dispensationalist conspiracy or a wild figment of imagination. It’s a biblical reality. Paul himself warns about professed believers who are actually not truly saved (see 2 Timothy 3:5, Jude 12-13). To lump them all with the openly lost misses that subtle but critical difference.

And no, I’m not creating some “third group” just to confuse matters. I’m simply pointing out what Scripture reveals: there are those who profess Christ but whose hearts don’t truly belong to Him. They’re within the visible church but outside the true elect. That’s not dispensationalism—it’s biblical discernment.

So before dismissing this teaching as “nonsense,” maybe take a fresh look with a little less theology from the playground and a little more from the Word itself, eh? :-)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wow, thanks for the Bible 101 refresher—Matthew 12:30, got it. But let’s slow down before you start assigning “childish” labels

No, I will continue to point out that you are childish.

The idea that everyone’s either saved or lost with no nuance is a nice, neat little box—but sadly, the Bible doesn’t always play along with such black-and-white thinking.

Sure, it does. With Christ or against Christ. Saved or lost. Wheat or tares. Sheep or goats. Righteous or wicked. Just or unjust.

You just choose to ignore how the Bible categorizes people as it relates to salvation.

The distinction between the visible church and the true body of Christ isn’t some dispensationalist conspiracy or a wild figment of imagination.

Yes, it's apparently also your wild figment of imagination that you share with them.

It’s a biblical reality. Paul himself warns about professed believers who are actually not truly saved (see 2 Timothy 3:5, Jude 12-13). To lump them all with the openly lost misses that subtle but critical difference.

LOL.. They are lost. Period. Not saved. You attempts to create a third group are for the purpose of twisting scripture to fit your doctrine which is the same reason dispensationalists create a third group.

And no, I’m not creating some “third group” just to confuse matters.

You are.

I’m simply pointing out what Scripture reveals: there are those who profess Christ but whose hearts don’t truly belong to Him. They’re within the visible church but outside the true elect. That’s not dispensationalism—it’s biblical discernment.

Nowhere does scripture refer to "the visible church". That comes from your imagination. The church is the church, man. Only those who belong to Christ are in the church and everyone else is not. Stop inventing things in your imagination to support your imagined doctrine.

So before dismissing this teaching as “nonsense,” maybe take a fresh look with a little less theology from the playground and a little more from the Word itself, eh? :-)

I've already done that. Is Matthew 12:30 in your Bible or the passages which group people as wheat and tares or sheep and goats or just and unjust or righteous and wicked?

 

[TribulationSigns]

I've already done that. Is Matthew 12:30 in your Bible or the passages which group people as wheat and tares or sheep and goats or just and unjust or righteous and wicked?

You still don't understand the Covenant relationship.
There is the Covenant Kingdom that is in heaven, which we will inherit and enter when we die or when Christ comes again. And then there is the earthly Covenant Kingdom, which both believers and unbelievers are part of. Selah! The short version is that "there are two groups spoken about as Covenant people." There are the children that represent the Covenant. And then there are the true covenant children. Just like God says that there was Israel, and then there was Israel, meaning only one was the true Israel of God.

Romans 9:4

• "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;"

There are all the children who were/are part of the covenant Kingdom of God, and then there are the true born of God covenant children, the seed of Christ, which is only a remnant. It's my experience that "this" is where most of the confusion comes it. The lack of distinction between the two. These are ALL children of the Kingdom, but one of these groups is by profession only.

Matthew 25:1-2

• "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
• And five of them were wise, and five were foolish."

See. The kingdom of heaven represents the congregation on Earth. This is talking about ALL the Covenanted kingdom children, but only five of them are truly saved that they will enter into the true kingdom of God. Just like there were many "of" the Covenanted congregation Israel, but only a remnant were truly saved Israel. In simple terms, there is a visible Covenant kingdom on earth (the Congregations or Churches) within which are both saved and unsaved professing Christians. And then there is the indivisible Covenant kingdom on earth (the true body of Christ) and all these elect have all been washed in the blood of the Lamb. They are both called children of the kingdom. Just as God called all Israel His Covenant People, children of the kingdom collectively, and yet only a remnant of them were His people spiritually. Likewise, the congregation today is His Covenant People, children of the kingdom collectively, and yet not all of them are redeemed either. That's why God in scripture could declare that He pours out His wrath out on "His People." Because they are only His people "externally," not eternally. God never pours out His wrath on His eternal people. Selah!

Matthew 23:37-38

• "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!
• Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

The Lord's Covenant congregation could only be left desolate "because" they were the external Covenant Kingdom!!! Likewise, the Lord's covenant congregation today (the Church) can only be left desolate "because" they are the external Covenant kingdom!!! It's the only place where apostasy can stand, where the man of sin can rule in God's house.

The external "Covenant or Promisory Kingdom" is that special relationship that God has with those who are called by His name. They are Covenanted by their own consent and profession to be part of the children of God. It is a conditional covenant. In the time before the cross, it was the covenant congregation of Israel. Which is also why the fell. They broke the covenant. After the cross it is the Covenant congregation made up of all nations. The congregation takes the name of God, and with it comes the responsibility. They also can fall in like manner as Israel did. There are conditional promises implicitly made to the external covenant community (the visible church) Israel, and rebellion means God's judgment upon it. Of course, keeping these precepts will save no one, but they are there to direct the "true believers" to the object of faith that can, which is Christ! i.e., the desire to faithfully keep God's laws are one of the evidences of faith and true love, not a reason for covenant salvation.

An external covenant congregation exists to be the outward sign of our professed relationship with God. Just as the nation of Israel was the outward sign of God's people. Even in a sense, as circumcision or water baptism was/is an outward sign of a Covenant (promissory) relationship with God. It didn't/doesn't mean that everyone who was baptized took this profession or sign was redeemed, but that they received that covenant signification, made them externally God's covenant people. The same principle here. And indeed this is how/why the signification could be taken away and given to another group entirely. Obviously!

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Clearly God is declaring that the external covenant congregation (representation of God's covenant people) is no longer the nation of Israel. It's "taken from" the nation of Israel. It was then "given to" the world congregation, made up of all peoples. This is the very same covenant concept that God illustrates in the symbolism of the Gentile branches being grafted into Israel, the external Covenant Olive Tree. In other words, this congregation is now the Kingdom of God represented on earth. The covenant kingdom representation (taken from Israel) has been given to them. And they likewise can be branches of this Olive tree "cut off" by unbelief, just as Israel was, if they fall into unbelief. So again, obviously, this is not talking about an eternal Covenant relationship, but an external one. One that can be broken by unbelief! Keep that in mind!! As I said, there are conditional promises implicitly made to the external covenant Church. Keeping these precepts will save no one, but they are there to direct the "true believers" to the object of faith that can, which is Christ! And so that we make our calling and election sure by examining ourselves, that we are truly in the faith of Christ. Something which few people do these days. The kingdom taken from Israel and given to the Church is this group Covenant (promissory) relationship with God. Indeed, that it could be taken away from one group, and that it could be given to another group, is evidence in itself what it is, and what it is not, and what it can never be.

Selah!

 

[PinSeeker]

I don't know how else to see it when you try to claim you believe in free will and try to say you think it's possible for all to be saved and things like that which don't line up with your overall beliefs.

Like I said, the problem is not in what I have said, the problem is what you think my "overall beliefs" are and what you think Calvin taught/wrote about these particular things we've been discussing.

Here's another lie from you.

I do not lie. If you think something someone says is untrue, SI, that someone is not necessarily lying.

Go well.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I do not lie. If you think something someone says is untrue, SI, that someone is not necessarily lying.

Look at the long back and forth discussions we've had. How can I think it's anything but a lie when you say I'm avoiding your points? That's ridiculous. If you disagree with me, fine, but I am not avoiding any of your points. That's the last thing you should be accusing me of doing.

 

[PinSeeker]

How can I think it's anything but a lie when you say I'm avoiding your points?

Because you keep saying you "don't understand" my points, even though I have been very thorough in explaining in many different ways, and you continue to clarify ~ wrongly ~ my positions in view of the many different passages of Scripture I have cited to support my positions many times over. Given your intelligence, it is virtually impossible to come to any other logical conclusion other than that you're just avoiding what I've been saying, as I said, many times over.

If you disagree with me...

I'm not even sure what to disagree with, because you've offered no other understanding of, say, for example, Ephesians 1:4-5. Another example would be the use of the word 'cannot,' (or being unable to do something), regarding which there should be no issue with understanding that one can say 'cannot' in the sense of physically not being capable of doing something as opposed to the sense in which one will not do something... will not agree with something or choose (or not choose) something.

...I am not avoiding any of your points. That's the last thing you should be accusing me of doing.

Fair enough. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because you keep saying you "don't understand" my points, even though I have been very thorough in explaining in many different ways, and you continue to clarify ~ wrongly ~ my positions in view of the many different passages of Scripture I have cited to support my positions many times over. Given your intelligence, it is virtually impossible to come to any other logical conclusion other than that you're just avoiding what I've been saying, as I said, many times over.

For one thing, I do NOT keep saying I don't understand your points. You're making that up. But, if I ever do not understand your point, how is that a case of avoiding your point? It's not. If I ever can't understand a point you've made, how can I address it without understanding it first? What reason do I have to avoid any of your points? Do I seem unsure about what I believe and my ability to defend what I believe? I avoid nothing. That's the last thing you should be accusing me of doing.

I'm not even sure what to disagree with, because you've offered no other understanding of, say, for example, Ephesians 1:4-5.

Yes, I have. Multiple times. I have said that I believe God predestined and chose for those who believe in Jesus (by their free will choice) to be adopted as His children and "that we should be holy and without blame before him in love". I don't believe it's talking about God having predestined and chose certain individuals to believe and be saved, but rather that those who do believe would be adopted as His spiritual children and ""that we should be holy and without blame before him in love".

Another example would be the use of the word 'cannot,' (or being unable to do something), regarding which there should be no issue with understanding that one can say 'cannot' in the sense of physically not being capable of doing something as opposed to the sense in which one will not do something... will not agree with something or choose (or not choose) something.

That was hard to follow and I'm not entirely sure of what you're intending to say here. Maybe it would be easier if we look at an example where it says people would not do something and then determine if we could also say that they could not or were unable to do that thing.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;

So, up to this point Jesus had been talking to the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees while calling them hypocrites and vipers and saying they were headed to hell and so on. So, the context of this passage is specifically related to them. Jesus said what He wanted to do for them, but didn't because they "were not willing". They were not willing to accept Him and the gospel. That's why He had been rebuking them so strongly. So, is it your view that they could have accepted Him and were able to accept Him but they were not willing to do so? Or do you believe there was no chance that they could accept Him and they were unable to accept Him because of not being chosen and that's why they were not willing to do so?

 

[PinSeeker]

For one thing, I do NOT keep saying I don't understand your points. You're making that up.

Just a sampling of Spiritual Israelite posts in this thread:

• “I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. This comes across as doublespeak.”
• “this is what you resort to every time I refute something you say since you're never completely clear in what you're saying.”
• “I have to guess in what sense you might be saying something since you are very bad at being clear.”
• “Why do you choose not to be clear about what you're saying then?”
• "I fail to see your point here."

So was this a lie on your part? Or were you just mistaken? <smile> At any rate, no, I'm not making it up...

But, if I ever do not understand your point, how is that a case of avoiding your point?

I actually think you do understand my points, but... you avoid them... in various... "ways." <smile> Shifting the subject frequently is one of them...

I have said that I believe God predestined and chose for those who believe in Jesus...

Ah, back that again. Okay, yes, you have, and in so doing, you're saying that God's will depends on man's, and absolutely contrary to... a direct refutation of... Exodus 33:19, Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27, Romans 9:14-18 (particularly verse 16), Philippians 2:13, and 1 Peter 1:3.

I don't believe it's talking about God having predestined and chose certain individuals to believe and be saved, but rather that those who do believe would be adopted as His spiritual children and ""that we should be holy and without blame before him in love".

The predestination of God's elect, those whom He foreknew, is not to believe in Christ, but "to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29), "for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will" (Ephesians 1:5).

One other thing... You said to RWB that "Faith is the act of willingly putting one's trust in something or someone" (post 102). That may be... someone's... definition... <smile> ...but God's, as related by the writer of Hebrews (which I have pointed out many times) is quite different: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The latter is very different than the former. Faith has to come from outside of us, from someone else besides us. Assuring ourselves of something hoped for is no assurance at all, but rather something like wishful thinking.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just a sampling of Spiritual Israelite posts in this thread:

• “I can't make any sense of what you're saying here. This comes across as doublespeak.”
• “this is what you resort to every time I refute something you say since you're never completely clear in what you're saying.”
• “I have to guess in what sense you might be saying something since you are very bad at being clear.”
• “Why do you choose not to be clear about what you're saying then?”
• "I fail to see your point here."

So was this a lie on your part? Or were you just mistaken? <smile> At any rate, no, I'm not making it up...

I said "I do NOT keep saying I don't understand your points.". Notice I mentioned "YOUR points" in particular, not anyone else's. Your first quote is something I said to rwb, not to you. Did you do that on purpose to deceptively try to back up your point or did you somehow not notice that I was only talking about YOUR points and not anyone else's? I didn't say that I never have said I didn't understand your point. I don't say that over and over again the way you made it seem.

I actually think you do understand my points, but... you avoid them... in various... "ways." <smile> Shifting the subject frequently is one of them...

I think you have no idea of what you're talking about. We think very differently, so it shouldn't be surprising that I would sometimes not understand your points and you would sometimes not understand mine, and you definitely don't understand mine at times. Especially when you try to say I have denied that our good works follow salvation rather than precede it. I have never said that, so you are either making that up or completely misunderstanding something I've said.

Ah, back that again. Okay, yes, you have, and in so doing, you're saying that God's will depends on man's, and absolutely contrary to... a direct refutation of... Exodus 33:19, Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27, Romans 9:14-18 (particularly verse 16), Philippians 2:13, and 1 Peter 1:3.

LOL. You say I'm back to "that again" after previously saying I never addressed it. Hilarious.

I'm not refuting anything said in scripture. You don't understand that God sovereignly chose to make man responsible and man didn't choose for that to be the case. You are misinterpreting all of those verses to mean that man has no say in salvation, but none of them say that. Joshua said to choose this day who you will serve (Josh 24:14-15) and would not have said that if man doesn't actually have any choice in the matter. Also, if man has no choice in the matter, why does God punish people? For doing things that they had no choice but doing (rebelling) and for not doing things that they had no choice but not to do (to not repent or believe)? I've never seen any Calvinist give any kind of convincing explanation for that.

The predestination of God's elect, those whom He foreknew, is not to believe in Christ, but "to be conformed to the image of his Son" (Romans 8:29), "for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will" (Ephesians 1:5).

God predestined that those who choose to believe in Christ would be "conformed to the image of His Son" and "for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will". You misinterpret that to be saying that God predestined certain individuals to be conformed and adopted, but it does not say that.

One other thing... You said to RWB that "Faith is the act of willingly putting one's trust in something or someone" (post 102). That may be... someone's... definition... <smile>

It certainly involves that.

Ephesians 1:12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Notice it talks about believers trusting in Christ and not about them receiving faith and trust in Christ. It strongly implies that believers willingly put their trust in Christ. How can trust come about by something other than someone's willing choice? In your doctrine, it's not our faith yet scripture repeatedly refers to "our faith" and "your faith". It seems that willingly putting your trust in Christ is not part of the equation in your faulty understanding of faith.

...but God's, as related by the writer of Hebrews (which I have pointed out many times) is quite different: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). The latter is very different than the former. Faith has to come from outside of us, from someone else besides us. Assuring ourselves of something hoped for is no assurance at all, but rather something like wishful thinking.

You have a very strange interpretation of that verse. In relation to salvation, hope is not wishful thinking, but rather confident expectation. Nowhere does that verse indicate that "faith has to come from outside of us". Not even close. I have no idea how you are seeing that in that verse. It's saying that faith is the assurance we have in the things we hope for and have confidence in (seeing Jesus as He is and inheriting eternal life in the new heavens and new earth) but don't yet have and the conviction or confidence we have in things not seen (we can't see God/Jesus or heaven, etc.).

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That was hard to follow and I'm not entirely sure of what you're intending to say here. Maybe it would be easier if we look at an example where it says people would not do something and then determine if we could also say that they could not or were unable to do that thing.

Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate;

So, up to this point Jesus had been talking to the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees while calling them hypocrites and vipers and saying they were headed to hell and so on. So, the context of this passage is specifically related to them. Jesus said what He wanted to do for them, but didn't because they "were not willing". They were not willing to accept Him and the gospel. That's why He had been rebuking them so strongly. So, is it your view that they could have accepted Him and were able to accept Him but they were not willing to do so? Or do you believe there was no chance that they could accept Him and they were unable to accept Him because of not being chosen and that's why they were not willing to do so?

@PinSeeker It's very interesting that you chose not to address what I said here at all. You have no thoughts at all on what I said here? No answers to the questions I asked you?

 

[PinSeeker]

I said "I do NOT keep saying I don't understand your points."

Right, and I used your own words to disprove your own assertion.

Notice I mentioned "YOUR points" in particular, not anyone else's.

Right; not necessary, since, for the most part, the three of us are making virtually the same points.

Your first quote is something I said to rwb, not to you.

Right; see above. And regarding the very same thing he was saying in that particular instance, you have accused me of the very same "doublespeak." So it may as well have been said directly to me, which is why I included it.

I think you have no idea of what you're talking about.

I don't care. <smile> When someone thinks someone has no idea what he or she is talking about, he doesn't argue so... vehemently. <chuckles>

...you definitely don't understand mine at times.

Name one. I understand very well your "points," maybe better than you yourself do.

Especially when you try to say I have denied that our good works follow salvation rather than precede it. I have never said that, so you are either making that up or completely misunderstanding something I've said.

Or, maybe I'm confusing you with another poster.

LOL. You say I'm back to "that again" after previously saying I never addressed it. Hilarious.

I never said you never addressed it.

I'm not refuting anything said in scripture.

The implication, false as it is, was clear. As it had been, again, as I said, many times before.

You don't understand that God sovereignly chose to make man responsible and man didn't choose for that to be the case.

And here again is the same implication ~ false, as I have said ~ that God's will depends on man's will.

You are misinterpreting all of those verses to mean that man has no say in salvation, but none of them say that.

So you think. I understand. You say that man has some responsibility for achieving his own salvation, thereby making the grace of God not really grace at all... and that man should share the glory with God, at least in some measure.

Joshua said to choose this day who you will serve...

No one is denying that man makes a choice, and makes it freely. Everyone gets exactly what he/she chooses.

God predestined that those who choose to believe in Christ would be "conformed to the image of His Son" and "for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will".

So God's will depends on man's will. Got it (again). Wrong again, but yeah, got it.

You misinterpret that to be saying that God predestined certain individuals to be conformed and adopted...

I interpret it that way because that's exactly what Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5 say.

Notice it talks about believers trusting in Christ and not about them receiving faith and trust in Christ.

Sure it does. The first two words of Ephesians 1:13 are "in Him." So, clearly, we were in Him when we heard the word of truth and believed.

It strongly implies that believers willingly put their trust in Christ...

Absolutely, because we are then in Christ. Before that, we were like the Jews Jesus was talking to in John 8 and 10, of our father the devil and doing his will.

How can trust come about by something other than someone's willing choice?

It's a matter of the state of the heart... who (or Who) he or she is of.

It seems that willingly putting your trust in Christ is not part of the equation in your faulty understanding of faith.

<chuckles> Man is not responsible for his/her faith, which, again, is God's assurance of salvation. We cannot give ourselves this assurance. But yes, once God gives it to us, it is ours... we have this assurance from God.

In relation to salvation, hope is not wishful thinking, but rather confident expectation.

Of course. You're twisting my point. I only said ~ generally speaking ~ f you assure yourself of something you have no assurance/proof of, it is something along the lines of wishful thinking.

Nowhere does that verse indicate that "faith has to come from outside of us".

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, SI. You cannot give it to yourself. Any assurance you give yourself of anything, if it hasn't been given to you in some way, is just wishful thinking. I hope it's sunny tomorrow, but you know, even a meteorologist cannot assure me it's not going to rain tomorrow

It's saying that faith is the assurance we have in the things we hope for

Not 'in the things we hope for,' but the assurance of the things hoped for themselves. We hope for these things, for sure, but we can only be assured of them by God Himself. We hope for them because we are assured of them, by God. And we are convicted of these things by the Holy Spirit; it is He Who convicts.

and have confidence in (seeing Jesus as He is and inheriting eternal life in the new heavens and new earth) but don't yet have and the conviction or confidence we have in things not seen (we can't see God/Jesus or heaven, etc.).

Ugh. <smile> I mean, you're trying so hard... <smile>

@PinSeeker It's very interesting that you chose not to address what I said here at all. You have no thoughts at all on what I said here? No answers to the questions I asked you?

Yes. Yes I do. <smile>

So, is it your view that they could have accepted Him and were able to accept Him but they were not willing to do so? Or do you believe there was no chance that they could accept Him and they were unable to accept Him because of not being chosen and that's why they were not willing to do so?

Yes. <smile> Depending on the... perspective... from which those questions are asked. Yes.

"But Jesus looked at them and said...​

• '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)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, and I used your own words to disprove your own assertion.

You disproved nothing. You misunderstood my assertion. What I was meaning to say is that I don't say you don't understand my points constantly over and over again. I never said that I never said that before. But, you quoting something I said to rwb in relation to something I was saying only about you says something about something. Saying something to and about him had nothing to do with what I was saying in relation only to you.

I don't care. <smile> When someone thinks someone has no idea what he or she is talking about, he doesn't argue so... vehemently. <chuckles>

That isn't true.

Name one.

I already did. I don't think you read my posts very carefully. I said: "Especially when you try to say I have denied that our good works follow salvation rather than precede it. I have never said that, so you are either making that up or completely misunderstanding something I've said.". So, there's one. You would not misrepresent me that badly if you understood my points that I've made about faith being contrasted with works and that salvation IS through faith but is NOT by works. How can you see me say that and still try to claim that I believe good works are necessary for salvation rather than being things God prepares for us to do after we are saved, as Paul said in Ephesians 2:10?

I understand very well your "points," maybe better than you yourself do.

LOL. You are very delusional if you really think that.

Or, maybe I'm confusing you with another poster.

Maybe so, but what excuse do you have for doing that? Maybe you should think a little harder before making accusations about what I believe that I have never even come close to saying.

I never said you never addressed it.

You must be really losing it lately. Are you okay? You might need to get checked out.

You said previously: "I'm not even sure what to disagree with, because you've offered no other understanding of, say, for example, Ephesians 1:4-5. ". How else should I have took this except that you were saying that I've never addressed Ephesians 1:4-5?

And here again is the same implication ~ false, as I have said ~ that God's will depends on man's will.

That is not true if God is the One who determined that man is responsible to choose whether or not to repent and believe, which is how I see it. God didn't make that determination because of man's will, He made that determination because HE is love (1 John 4:8) and it lines up with His character to graciously and genuinely offer salvation to all people, which He does (Titus 2:11) because He wants all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) and commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).

So you think. I understand. You say that man has some responsibility for achieving his own salvation, thereby making the grace of God not really grace at all... and that man should share the glory with God, at least in some measure.

Wrong. Scripture never teaches this. Instead, what it teaches is that salvation is by God's grace through faith and not by works that he could boast about (Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul contrasted faith with works, but, despite that, you try to make faith into a work. What would contradict the grace of God is if salvation was by works, but it is not. But, it is through faith. Never does scripture indicate that salvation being through faith would nullify the grace of God.

No one is denying that man makes a choice, and makes it freely. Everyone gets exactly what he/she chooses.

Come on. This is so incredibly dishonest. How do you define the word "choice"? Here's how I see it defined...

choice (noun): an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.

In your view, there are NOT two or more possibilities in relation to a choice that man can make in relation to salvation. How can you not acknowledge this? For those who freely choose to have faith, could they have potentially chosen to not have faith instead? Not in your doctrine. For those who freely choose to not have faith, could they have potentially chosen to have faith instead? Not in your doctrine that says whether or not someone has faith is completely up to God. So, don't give me this nonsense that you believe that "man makes a choice, and makes it freely". In your doctrine, each person can only make one "choice", which is no choice at all since a choice is made between two or more legitimate possibilities.

So God's will depends on man's will. Got it (again). Wrong again, but yeah, got it.

That's not what I believe and not what I've ever said. Do you have no conscience about misrepresenting what I believe? His will is for man to willingly choose to repent and believe. The origination of His will to make it that way did not depend on man's will, which is what you are actually trying to say that I believe. I do not believe that. Man had no say in how God determined that salvation would work, which includes making man responsible to choose whether or not to repent and believe.

I interpret it that way because that's exactly what Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5 say.

No, that is NOT exactly what those verses say. That is your interpretation of what they say.

Sure it does. The first two words of Ephesians 1:13 are "in Him." So, clearly, we were in Him when we heard the word of truth and believed.

You are butchering the text badly.

Ephesians 1:12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

In no way, shape or form does this say we were already in Him before we heard the word of truth and trusted in Him. That's ridiculous. You can't be in Him until you first believe the word of truth and put your trust in Him. Paul said those he was writing to trusted in Him after hearing the word of truth. How can you be in Him before you trust in Him? No one who doesn't trust in Him is "in Him". The reason someone can be said to be "in Him" is because they trust in Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

<chuckles> Man is not responsible for his/her faith, which, again, is God's assurance of salvation. We cannot give ourselves this assurance. But yes, once God gives it to us, it is ours... we have this assurance from God.

Show me where Hebrews 11:1 says something about God giving us faith and assurance. It's not there.

Of course. You're twisting my point. I only said ~ generally speaking ~ f you assure yourself of something you have no assurance/proof of, it is something along the lines of wishful thinking.

We have plenty of assurance/evidence to support our faith. We can't see God, but we can see the things He has made and we can see the things He has done and how He has worked in people's lives, which helps us to have our faith and trust in Him. You're acting like I'm saying our faith is in ourselves. No, our faith and trust is in God who we can see has proven Himself to be trustworthy.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, SI. You cannot give it to yourself.

LOL. Where are you coming up with this from? Assurance is confidence. Why can't we decide to have confidence in God? Why does it have to be given to us?

Any assurance you give yourself of anything, if it hasn't been given to you in some way, is just wishful thinking.

You are falsely representing what I believe. You're talking as if I say my assurance or confidence is in myself. No, it's in God. You're arguing with a straw man here.

I hope it's sunny tomorrow, but you know, even a meteorologist cannot assure me it's not going to rain tomorrow

Why not? In today's day and age, we can have a lot of assurance and confidence in what the weather will be tomorrow.

Not 'in the things we hope for,' but the assurance of the things hoped for themselves. We hope for these things, for sure, but we can only be assured of them by God Himself. We hope for them because we are assured of them, by God. And we are convicted of these things by the Holy Spirit; it is He Who convicts.

You act as if faith and assurance is 100% proof. Faith has nothing to do with 100% proof of something. You seem to create definitions for words that don't exist, such as how you define the word "choice" as being something that people decide with only one legitimate possibility to "choose" from. I don't get it.

Ugh. <smile> I mean, you're trying so hard... <smile>

Ugh yourself. You're trying just as hard to support your own point and completely failing to do so, in my opinion.

Yes. <smile> Depending on the... perspective... from which those questions are asked. Yes.

"But Jesus looked at them and said...​

• '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)

What a cop out response.

I asked in relation to those who never accept Christ: "is it your view that they could have accepted Him and were able to accept Him but they were not willing to do so?". You're saying "Yes", depending on the perspective?". What does that even mean? why can't you ever just answer a question directly? You always have to say it depends on the perspective or the sense in which something is meant to be understood without clarifying in what sense or perspective you're talking about.

Tell me exactly how someone who you believe was not predestined to believe and be saved could have possibly accepted Christ and been saved? In what perspective is that possible? Saying that everything is possible with God has to be understood in context. It does not make it possible, from the perspective of your doctrine, for those who He did not predestine to save to be saved. It does not make it possible for God to create a rock that He can't lift. Be reasonable.

 

[PinSeeker]

You disproved nothing.

<chuckles>

You misunderstood my assertion. What I was meaning to say is that I don't say you don't understand my points constantly over and over again...

Oh, I see, so, in saying, "I don't understand your points" and "you're never clear" and such (repeatedly), you were really saying, "You don't understand my points." That's... interesting.... And a microcosm of so many other elements of this entire... "conversation." But okay, fair enough. <smile>

Show me where Hebrews 11:1 says something about God giving us faith and assurance. It's not there.

<chuckles>...

• Hebrews 11:1 is the very definition of 'faith.' Faith is the assurance and conviction... "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." You will agree, I think, that you have to get this assurance from somewhere, right? And your position is that this assurance, your assurance ~ that your sins are forgiven, that you have eternal life ~ comes from no one other than you personally, that you are the source of your own faith. So, my question to you is... and it's rhetorical, really... what kind of assurance is that? It's not really assurance at all; you cannot in and of yourself assure yourself of these things. To assure yourself of these things in and of yourself is no real assurance at all.
• On top of that, the entirety of Hebrews is about what God ~ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ~ has done for us. So did the writer, in chapter 11, suddenly shift to what we have done for ourselves... and then shift back again to what God has done for us in chapter 12? Which includes, by the way, what he writes at the very beginning of Hebrews 12, that "Jesus (is) the founder and perfecter of our faith"...? Well, in a word, no. Of course not.
• One final thing I will add that's very relevant here: Jesus did, in His earthly ministry, forgive some folks of their sins (e.g., Matthew 9:2 and Mark 2:5). This is only something God can do, as I'm sure you'll agree... or, well, I hope you will, anyway... So ~ again ~ only God can give this assurance, this faith, which should tell you at least two things:
  • that you should be praying for the salvation of others, that the Lord would give them faith to believe, and
  • you should also be praying that God would increase your faith as the apostles implored of Jesus in Luke 17:5

Paul speaks in w Corinthians 4:13-14 of having the spirit of faith and so we believe... "Since we have the same spirit of faith... we also believe..." ​

​

...remember what God says in Ezekiel 11 and 36 ("I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh... I will put my Spirit within you...")​

We believe, SI, because we have been given this new spirit and are thus, as Paul says, no longer children of wrath like the rest of mankind (Ephesians 2:3)​

​

"...and so we also speak, knowing that He Who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into His presence" [2 Corinthians 4:13-14]​

I understand why, Spiritual Israelite, but ~ and I really do mean this in love and with all due respect ~ you are just being very obstinate. It's not hard to understand. As I have said many times, the things we are talking about really have nothing directly to do with our will, but rather our heart, our spirit. Without being resurrected in spirit ~ which we cannot do for ourselves ~ without this new "heart of flesh" being given to us by God, our heart will remain "of stone," and we will of our own volition continue to walk (and do) in the ways of the world, by sight... rather than the ways of God, walking in the Spirit, walking by faith, which is God's assurance. But once this happens, once we are given this new spirit,heart/faith He will never renounce it or revoke it. No, then, His "steadfast love endures forever." He will "never leave or forsake" us. "Goodness and mercy will follow us all the days of our lives, and we will dwell in the house of the LORD forever" (various quotes from God and David in the Psalms, of course).

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Just a couple of things from your previous post... <chuckles>

Regarding Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5...

No, that is NOT exactly what those verses say. That is your interpretation of what they say.

I quoted them word for word, Spiritual Israelite. Verbatim.

Ephesians 1:12... In no way, shape or form does this say we were already in Him before we heard the word of truth and trusted in Him.

It does; if we are not in Christ, we can hear the word of truth, for sure, but if we are not in Christ, we will not trust in God.

You can't be in Him until you first believe the word of truth and put your trust in Him.

No, in believing the Word and trusting in God, we prove... even to ourselves... that we are in Christ. Our believing the Word and trusting in God is concrete evidence of our being in Christ. As are our good works.

Paul said those he was writing to trusted in Him after hearing the word of truth.

Right, but he knew full well that there would be those who read his letter who were not at that time yet in Christ. Much as any preacher today knows (or should, anyway) that there are probably at least some in his congregation that are not yet in Christ... even though they may think they are... I have several family members who fit that description, the evidence of which is their lack of the fruit of the Spirit.

How can you be in Him before you trust in Him?

It is possible to have a changed heart and not yet realize it. As Jesus says to Nicodemus (again) in John 3, "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

No one who doesn't trust in Him is "in Him".

Ah, well, no one who knows he trusts in... well, something else... himself, really... rather than some "Creator"... and thus believes the Gospel to be foolishness... is in Christ.

The reason someone can be said to be "in Him" is because they trust in Him.

The trusting comes from the heart... <smile> ...and only if it is of flesh and not stone. Which can only be the case if God has made it so.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

<chuckles>...

• Hebrews 11:1 is the very definition of 'faith.' Faith is the assurance and conviction... "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Uh huh. Scripture speaks of us having faith and trust in Christ and having the assurance (confidence) and conviction that we can trust in Him with our lives. Scripture repeatedly refers to "our faith" and "your faith" and so on. If faith is given to us then it's not really our faith. It's not really us putting our faith and trust in Christ. We're just robots in that case.

Have you ever read the verses after Hebrews 11:1?

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

If faith does not come from us and comes from God instead, then how can we please God with faith? Wouldn't He be pleased with Himself for giving us faith rather than being pleased with us for having faith in that case? I would think so.

Also, why would it talk about us coming to God and being required to believe in Him if faith is given to us? It seems that your doctrine would say that he that God comes to will "believe that he is" with the faith God has given him.

Why was Jesus amazed at the faith of the Roman centurion who believed He could heal his servant without even going to his home if faith is given to people?

Matthew 8:5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, 6 And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. 7 And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. 8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. 9 For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. 10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

We know that Jesus is God, so if saving faith was given by God then Jesus certainly would never be amazed at the faith that He gave someone. That would be ridiculous. Yet, we see here that Jesus marvelled at the "great faith" that the centurion had in Him and said He had not see anyone else with that much faith before, even in Israel. Explain how you can reconcile this with your understanding of faith.

• You will agree, I think, that you have to get this assurance from somewhere, right?

Faith and assurance comes from the word of God because of the undeniable truth contained there. As Paul indicated, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). The truth of the word of God brings conviction of sin and brings the revelation of truth regarding the mysteries of life (How did we get here, why are we here, what can be done about sin, what happens after we die, etc.).

• And your position is that this assurance, your assurance ~ that your sins are forgiven, that you have eternal life ~ comes from no one other than you personally, that you are the source of your own faith.

It comes from my faith, my belief that what is written in the word of God is true. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. I decided to believe what I heard from the word of God because it makes sense of everything. That's why we need to encourage people to read the word of God so that they can discover the truth written in it. What is the problem with that? Why else is God pleased with us for having faith except that it comes from a willing decision to put our faith and trust in Him rather than ourselves or anyone or anything else? What sense does it make that God is pleased with us for having faith if He gave it to us? There's nothing for Him to be pleased with us about in that case. He would be pleased with Himself for giving us faith instead. But, that's not what it says in Hebrews 11:6.

• So, my question to you is... and it's rhetorical, really... what kind of assurance is that?

I don't care if you said this was a rhetorical question. I'll answer it, anyway. What kind of assurance is putting my faith in God/Jesus and trusting that the word of God is true? It's strong assurance, but not because of anything in me, but because the word of God is so powerful and convincing to me. It's undeniable if you read it honestly and objectively, which anyone can choose to do.

• It's not really assurance at all; you cannot in and of yourself assure yourself of these things. To assure yourself of these things in and of yourself is no real assurance at all.

Nonsense. The Roman centurion assured himself that Jesus was who He said He was and was trustworthy because of what He had heard Jesus say and what He saw Him do. If He didn't assure himself about who Jesus was and what Jesus was capable of doing, then why was Jesus amazed at his faith? If God gives people faith and assurance then, surely, Jesus would not have been amazed at the centurion's faith. Think about it.

• On top of that, the entirety of Hebrews is about what God ~ the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ~ has done for us.

Hello? Of course, but what you ignore is that God is pleased with those who believe in what God has done for us. God doesn't give us the faith to believe that. We are required to use our God given free will to choose whether or not to believe in what God has done for us while admitting that we could not have done it ourselves. Faith is humbling ourselves and putting our trust in God. You Calvinists have it in your heads that all non-Calvinists believe in a gospel of salvation by works, but that is NOT the case. To willingly choose to humble yourself and acknowledge that you can't save yourself is not a case of being saved by works.

• So did the writer, in chapter 11, suddenly shift to what we have done for ourselves...

Where did I say anything about us doing anything for ourselves? You sure do waste a lot of time making straw man arguments. I am not saying there's any works that we can do to be saved. That's what you keep thinking I believe, but that's what your straw man believes, not me. Faith is contrasted with works (Ephesians 2:8-9), so your idea that if faith comes from us, from a choice that we make, that it would mean that salvation is by works, is a completely false accusation.

• and then shift back again to what God has done for us in chapter 12?

It's all about what God has done for us. I've never said otherwise. You just get it in your head that I believe certain things that I don't actually believe and you then waste your time arguing with a straw man. My position is that we are required to humble ourselves and acknowledge that there's nothing we can do to save ourselves (not by works - Eph 2:9) and that we have to trust in Christ and trust God that what He did is sufficient for our salvaiton rather than there being anything we can do to earn it.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I understand why, Spiritual Israelite, but ~ and I really do mean this in love and with all due respect ~ you are just being very obstinate.

LOL. This comment means less than nothing to me since it's 100% wrong.

It's not hard to understand.

I agree. Yet, you still don't understand.

As I have said many times, the things we are talking about really have nothing directly to do with our will, but rather our heart, our spirit. Without being resurrected in spirit ~ which we cannot do for ourselves ~ without this new "heart of flesh" being given to us by God, our heart will remain "of stone," and we will of our own volition continue to walk (and do) in the ways of the world, by sight... rather than the ways of God, walking in the Spirit, walking by faith, which is God's assurance. But once this happens, once we are given this new spirit,heart/faith He will never renounce it or revoke it. No, then, His "steadfast love endures forever." He will "never leave or forsake" us. "Goodness and mercy will follow us all the days of our lives, and we will dwell in the house of the LORD forever" (various quotes from God and David in the Psalms, of course).

What you don't understand is that being given a new heart/spirit and being given the Holy Spirit is what is required to start walking in obedience to Christ since we can't do so in our own power. But, that's something that occurs after we are saved/born again. We do the good works that God has prepared for us AFTER we become saved, not before. We're not able to do them before being saved/born again because we need the Holy Spirit's help to do so. But, nowhere does scripture teach that people are not capable of recognizing their need to repent and put their faith and trust in Christ in order to be forgiven and given the opportunity to be a follower of Christ and to pursue righteousness unless first being regenerated and given a new heart/spirit.

God expects people to humble themselves after being presented with the truth while acknowledging that they are sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness and in need of being made new. God commands all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) because that is what He expects and requires all people everywhere to do, but you deny this by saying that God is the one who gives repentance and no one can repent any other way. So, your view has God commanding all people to repent while at the same time saying they can/will not do so unless God basically makes them do so by giving them repentance, which is contradictory. If repentance was given by God only to some, then He would not command all people everywhere to repent, but He does.

Jesus said He came to call sinners to repentance and indicated that sinners are sick and in need of the physician (Mark 2:16-17). He said that after hearing the scribes and Pharisees questioning why Jesus was dining with and spending time with tax collectors and sinners at Levi's house. All people are sinners, right (Romans 3:23)? So, Jesus calls all people to repent. Including all the sinners he ate with at Levi's house. Nowhere did He indicate that some of them couldn't possibly do so or be willing to do so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Just a couple of things from your previous post... <chuckles>

Regarding Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:5...

I quoted them word for word, Spiritual Israelite. Verbatim.

LOL. You are hilarious. You quoting them word for word doesn't make your interpretation of them correct. Nowhere do those verses say that God predestined certain individuals to believe. That is not what those verses say. What He predestined is that those who believe in Christ would be adopted and would be conformed to the image of Christ, etc.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Do you believe that God loves the world, PinSeeker? If so, then why would you believe that He predestined certain individuals to believe when scripture teaches that WHOSOEVER believes in HIm should not perish, but have everlasting life? Your view is that, in relation to giving eternal life, God does not love the world, but only loves certain people who He decided to give faith to while being content with allowing the rest of the people in the world to remain in darkness and destined for eternal tormet with no opportunity for eternal life. But, scripture teaches WHOSOEVER in the world can believe in Him, not whosoever God choose to believe will believe in Him.


Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

You keep trying to say that salvation is entirely based on God's choice, but if that was the case the verse above would make no sense. If saving faith is given to certain people that God chose to give it to with man having no choice in the matter, then why is "the water of life" presented as something that is offered to people freely that they can choose to take or not? That doesn't line up with your belief that the water of life is given to people by God entirely by His choice and not something that people can freely take if they so choose to do so.

It does; if we are not in Christ, we can hear the word of truth, for sure, but if we are not in Christ, we will not trust in God.

Where is this taught in scripture? Why does God command all people everywhere to repent, which involves confessing one's sins and desire to turn from their sinful ways to God and His ways instead, if one has to be in Christ first in order to do so? Not all people everywhere are in Christ, obviously, yet all people everywhere are commanded by God to repent and put their trust in God to have mercy on them and save them from the wages of sin.

Your doctrine just blatantly contradicts the scriptures which teach that God wants all people everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) and to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6) which is why He sent His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). Your doctrine says that, instead, God wants only certain people that He chose before the foundation of the world to repent and to be saved.

The trusting comes from the heart... <smile> ...and only if it is of flesh and not stone. Which can only be the case if God has made it so.

Scripture teaches that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit AFTER we first put our trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:12-13), so you have things backwards. Of course, once the Spirit comes to dwell in us, we begin to get to know God/Christ better and our faith grows from there, but in terms of when we initially put our trust in Christ to save us and forgive our sins, nowhere does scripture teach that we have to be regenerated first to do that. Our new heart occurs after we put our trust in Christ and it gives us the ability to see things how He sees them so that we can obey Him and live righteously. You are conflating initial repentance and faith in Christ that God requires in order to be born again/saved with what God does to help us grow and to do the good works He has for us to do after being saved/born again.