The Orthodox Preterist versus the Heretical Dispensationalist

[Timtofly]

Well, thereabouts, I guess, because that's what John himself says in his Revelation. Chapters 1-3 are letters to the existing churches at that time (late first century), chapters 4-5 are showing the scene in heaven at present (then and now and ongoing), and the chapters 6-20 (yes, restarting at certain points) reveal the progression of events up to Christ's return, final Judgment, and ushering in the new heaven and new earth,

It does not just cover "your time frame". It covers the time frame of Daniel as well, going all the way back to Daniel 2.

And as the final harvest of humanity, would cover all of Adam's offspring from when Adam disobeyed. All the dead in Revelation 20:12 is all of mankind from Adam and Eve still without redemption.

Should we say Amil has a wooden interpretation that only views the last 1993 years, and limits Revelation to that wooden view?

Saying that 144k of Israel is about Israel is not a wooden view. Saying it is only about a small elect number of individuals is a wooden view via symbolism.

The literal view does not even limit 144k to represent all of Israel. That would be nonsense. There will be millions of other sheep redeemed to inherit the earth. It is the symbolic view that denies 144k literal humans. It is the same as denying the 12 disciples in the first century were literal individuals, but only symbolic and represented the entire church body. If you deny these 144k are literal individuals that is the same as denying there were 12 literal disciples of Christ who became the NT church.

Obviously 12×12×1000 would be your "wooden" exponential symbolic representation of the last symbolic 1993 (literally 1000) years. Starting out with a symbolic 12 in the first century. (Just saying since people throw out that term "wooden" seemingly just willy nilly.)

 

[PinSeeker]

It does not just cover "your time frame". It covers the time frame of Daniel as well, going all the way back to Daniel 2.

If you mean to say that Revelation's timeframe is beginning before Christ, then I disagree. As I said above, John clearly states the timeframe covered in his visions in Revelation 1 and 4, as I said above. If you mean to say that much of what Daniel prophesies is in the same time frame as is covered by John's Revelation, then I agree with that.

And as the final harvest of humanity, would cover all of Adam's offspring from when Adam disobeyed. All the dead in Revelation 20:12 is all of mankind from Adam and Eve still without redemption.

Sure, I agree with that, except that all are judged, even the redeemed, the difference being that the redeemed ~ those on Jesus's right in Matthew 25, and those raised to the resurrection of eternal life in John 5:29 ~ will have an Advocate (Christ Himself). This is what's seen in Revelation 20:12-13.

Should we say Amil has a wooden interpretation that only views the last 1993 years, and limits Revelation to that wooden view?

You can call it what you want, but it seems we mean quite different things with regard to "wooden." And now, to be quite honest, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "limiting it to the last 1993 years". I would say to that that there is a sense in which it is limited to the last... well, about 2000 years... and also a sense in which it most certainly is not. It seems to me here that your view of "Amillennialism limiting Revelation to the last 1993 years" is rather wooden, frankly. At the least it seems to be a moving target...

Saying that 144k of Israel is about Israel is not a wooden view.

That's not what I'm referring to as wooden. I agree with this statement, actually, although possibly ~ possibly, because I'm not exactly sure of the distinction or non-distinction you are making ~ not quite in the way you mean that.

Saying it is only about a small elect number of individuals is a wooden view via symbolism.

Well, to say something is innumerable is quite the opposite of "a small number"... And beyond that, the very opposite of wooden (simplistic) with regard to the number itself.

The literal view does not even limit 144k to represent all of Israel.

Well, I agree. But the issue is not whether it is literal or not, Timtofly. Something being symbolic does not necessarily exclude literal-ness; symbolism is an artistic and poetic movement or style which uses symbolic images and indirect suggestion to express literal realities.

There will be millions of other sheep redeemed to inherit the earth.

Sure. Innumerable, actually. As the stars, as God promised Abraham.

It is the symbolic view that denies 144k literal humans.

Nobody in the Ammillenial camp denies that they are literal humans... <chuckles>

Only the number itself is symbolic... of the fullness if Israel, the complete number... which is fleshed out as an innumerable multitude of, well, literal humans <chuckles> in Revelation 7:9-17.

And regarding that completeness, what is represented in that number, 144,000, of Revelation 7:1-8 are the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 disciples and 1000 (12 and 1000 are used throughout Scripture, sometimes literal and sometimes not, in various contexts and regardless of context denote completeness). So it's 12 times 12 times 1000, which is purposefully done to denote a "complete completeness," if you will, a Hebrew technique of repetition which we see throughout Scripture (it is picked up in the Greek of the New Testament) in various ways. For example:

• Isaiah said "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts..." (Isaiah 6:3; incidentally, only when the repetition is used in reference to God is repeated twice)
• Jesus uses this Hebrew technique of repetition by saying not merely, "truly" but "truly, truly" (also correctly translated "amen, amen"; many instances throughout John's gospel).

It is the same as denying the 12 disciples in the first century were literal individuals, but only symbolic and represented the entire church body.

Well, what Jesus says to the 12 disciples also applies to us, right? Well, right. So yes, it's literal, but also symbolic... maybe the correct term to use there is representative. I consider myself a disciple of Jesus ~ I follow (in the full sense of that word) Him, and hope you do, too. Of course, neither of us is one of the original twelve... of course...

If you deny these 144k are literal individuals...

Yeah, no. Just the number, which is symbolic of ~ representative of ~ of the innumerable multitude of literal individuals. See above. No one disagrees on the literalness of the individuals. This representativeness is a pattern throughout Scripture. Adam represented all of humanity to come in Genesis 3. We see this concept of a federal head ~ of humanity, "...just as sin came into the world through one man..." (Adam), and of God's elect, "the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many..." (the Second Adam, Christ).

Obviously 12×12×1000 would be your "wooden" exponential symbolic representation...

Well, we mean very different things by "wooden"... This symbolic representation is the very opposite of "wooden" ~ seeing in the number 144,000 the layers of meaning contained therein and reading it correctly, which is far less, well, simplistic, than many think.

of the last symbolic 1993 (literally 1000) years.

That's funny. How are 1000 and 1993 equal? Isn't that backwards? The 1993 is literal (and increasing as we speak), and the 1000 is symbolic. Here, you actually sound like an amillennial camper... with regard to the millennium of Revelation 20, anyway... If you actually were, then we'd be good!

Starting out with a symbolic 12 in the first century.

No, if you're referring to the original twelve disciples, well no, that was quite literal, and not symbolic at all...

Just saying since people throw out that term "wooden" seemingly just willy nilly.

Hmmm, well, maybe...

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Sure. Innumerable, actually. As the stars, as God promised Abraham.

It is possible to count if one had the means. And those innumerable are a small percentage, compared to those in the LOF.

And yes, John was able to comprehend 144k as a recognized number. He was not guessing nor calling them a sample of the other multitude that would take a little more effort to count. The angels told him how many were sealed.

If you think angels could not count them, I hope you don't or have not ever worked for a bank. You would be insane to tell a billionaire, here is 144k dollars, it is all you get, but represents your billions you think you have.

This 144k is not setting a limit on who is redeemed. These 144k have a purpose on earth and are protected to carry out that purpose. They are individuals just like the original 12 were individuals with a purpose. Just one group lived in the first century. The 144k are alive on the earth at the Second Coming.

 

[PinSeeker]

It is possible to count if one had the means.

LOL!!! I... guess I agree... That's kind of the point when God makes the covenant with Abraham, that, by saying, "Count them if you can," God's implication is, "Hey, dude, you can't possibly count them all, because you "don't have the means"..." LOL!!!

And those innumerable are a small percentage, compared to those in the LOF.

Maybe, and possibly probably, but we can't know.

And yes, John was able to comprehend 144k as a recognized number. He was not guessing nor calling them a sample of the other multitude that would take a little more effort to count. The angels told him how many were sealed.

It was a vision, a dream, and it was certainly indicative of what will be, but not cold, hard, reality. Apocalyptic "stuff" can't be read that way... shouldn't be, anyway.

This 144k is not setting a limit on who is redeemed.

Agree....

These 144k have a purpose on earth and are protected to carry out that purpose. They are individuals just like the original 12 were individuals with a purpose. Just one group lived in the first century. The 144k are alive on the earth at the Second Coming.

We disagree.

Any kind of hard focus on 144,000 is entirely missing the point of Revelation 7 and 14, and drawing the conclusion that the 144,000 described in Revelation 7:1-8 and the innumerable multitude of Revelation 7:9-17 are different groups of people in different locations is in error, for several reasons, as I've said. In both the former and the latter, God's Israel, His elect are in view. Verses 1-8 are about their Israelite heritage; the balanced numbering suggests that 12 is a symbolic number for the fullness of the people of God. Some think that the 144,000 includes only Jewish believers, but “servants of our God” in Revelation 7:3 must include Gentile saints as well. Verses 9-17 are about the great vastness of the group as a whole.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Timtofly]

Any kind of hard focus on 144,000 is entirely missing the point of Revelation 7 and 14, and drawing the conclusion that the 144,000 described in Revelation 7:1-8 and the innumerable multitude of Revelation 7:9-17 are different groups of people in different locations is in error, for several reasons, as I've said. In both the former and the latter, God's Israel, His elect are in view. Verses 1-8 are about their Israelite heritage; the balanced numbering suggests that 12 is a symbolic number for the fullness of the people of God. Some think that the 144,000 includes only Jewish believers, but “servants of our God” in Revelation 7:3 must include Gentile saints as well. Verses 9-17 are about the great vastness of the group as a whole.

That is the whole point. Even now there is that innumerable multitude currently in Paradise serving God day and night. Then there are those in Adam's dead corruptible flesh walking around on the earth.

There are more than 144k walking around, redeemed on the earth at this moment. They are separate from those in Paradise. All Revelation 7 is saying is that after the Second Coming, there are 144k walking around on earth redeemed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and the rest are in Paradise. There will always be those on the earth, and those in Paradise, until the NHNE, which is still a thousand years away, which you also deny.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I do not believe Hebrews 6:6 is not referring to true repentance, Spiritual Israelite.

Well then, PinSeeker, why do you think that people cannot fall away after truly repenting when that is exactly what Hebrews 6:4-6 says? It says anyone who does fall away after having truly repented cannot be renewed again unto repentance. That implies that they had repented previously but can't be led to do so again if they fall away.

Okay, well I'm not sure why, but you can dispel that thought straight away.

Because if it's talking about true repentance it's saying that someone who has truly repented can fall away.

I very pointedly said, Spiritual Israelite, that I knew you did not intend to take sin lightly ~ "I know you don't mean to be, but it is what it is." I did not lie about you in any way whatsoever. Goodness gracious. All I said was that that could be the unintended effect of what you said, not that you actually doing such a thing.

No, it can't.

Yes, I'm well aware of the language in which the New Testament was written... The "impression" is the same. In either case ('because' or 'for'), the former is a consequence of the latter; the latter is a prerequisite that makes the former inevitable. In this case, One will not believe unless he or she has been given to the Son and is therefore one of His sheep. This is intimately related to what John writes earlier, both that "children of God... were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13) and from Jesus Himself, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him" (John 6:44).

No one believes that when we are born again/born of the Spirit (I'm talking about the actual act that makes us born again/of the Spirit) that it's an act of the flesh or the will of man. It's something that the Holy Spirit does. But, the thing people disagree about is whether that occurs before or after we put our faith in Christ. The following strongly suggests that our faith comes first:

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 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,

As for John 6:44, do you not also take John 12:32 into account?


John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Did Jesus contradict Himself here? No, of course not. By looking at BOTH John 6:44 and John 12:32 rather than just John 6:44 alone, we can conclude that the Father draws people to Jesus who do not resist Jesus's drawing of them to Himself. And His drawing, which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, can be resisted as we can see here when Stephen rebukes the unbelieving Jews shortly before they stoned him to death:

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

And later, Jesus says, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you" (John 15:16).

This verse is related specifically to the 12 disciples and is not about being chosen to salvation while implying that they had no choice in the matter. He was referring to choosing them to be His closest disciples who would walk directly with Him and learn directly from Him. It was only the 12 who had that experience and were chosen for that role. And, once again, you are interpreting a verse without taking all of scripture into account. If Jesus was talking there about choosing them to salvation with them having no choice in the matter, then what do you make of this:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

When Jesus said what He did in John 15:16, Judas Iscariot was there. He was talking to all twelve of them, including Judas Iscariot. So, He chose all 12 of them to "go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He may give it to you". But, Judas betrayed him. Judas was clearly not chosen to salvation, but rather was chosen to be one of Jesus's twelve closest disciples that would be in His inner circle.

Scripture assures believers ~ over and over again, because we, in our frailty, need it ~ that those who are in Christ cannot fall away and thus lose their salvation. Jesus says Himself, in the very passage we're talking about in John 10, "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 fully agree with what Jesus said there. But, you continue to only look at part of the picture instead of the whole picture. Yes, no one can take us away from Him. But, does that mean we can't leave Him? He never said that. He was only talking about the fact that no one else can take us away from Him and was not saying anything about us not being able to leave Him.

If you do not see our eternal security in Christ in this quote ~ and it's just one of many ~ what do you possibly see, Spiritual Israelite? What can you possibly take from that statement that indicates anything ~ anything ~ to the contrary? To believe saved people, those called by God and given new birth in the Spirit, can fall away and lose their salvation is to say that faith, is not really what Hebrews 11:1 says it is,

"the (God-given, as we see in Ephesians 2:8, the gift of God) assurance of things hoped for, and conviction (by the Holy Spirit, Who convicts) of things unseen.

You're adding things to the verse that aren't there. You shouldn't do that. It doesn't say that it's God-given. You are adding that. Scripture repeatedly refers to our faith, assurance, confidence, conviction that we decide to have or not in response to God's drawing and His reaching out to us.

And, in Ephesians 2:8, it does not say faith is the gift of God, it says salvation, which is by grace through faith and not of works, is the gift of God. Which lines up with Romans 6:23 which says eternal life is the gift of God. Eternal life and salvation are the same thing. It is obtained by grace through our faith and not by our works.

I agree that the writer of Hebrews is writing a letter to people he presumes to be saved, yes. He's writing to believers, but he doesn't know if everyone reading will actually be a believer... and also with the hope that unbelievers hearing what he is writing ~ because all these letters were read aloud to congregations ~ will acquire faith, because this is how faith comes, by hearing, as we see in Romans 10.

I'm not convinced at all by what you're saying here. I do not believe for a second that he would call them "holy brethren" if he wasn't sure that they had all been made holy by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. When we are saved His righteousness is imputed to us and we can then be considered holy and righteous because of how His blood takes away our sins and makes us holy in God's sight. It doesn't mean we are sinless, it means our sins are covered. It's very clear to me that the writer of Hebrews (most likely Paul) was addressing saved believers specifically. If any of them reading his letter were not saved then what he said did not apply to them, so they are irrelevant when it comes to the message Paul was conveying in the letter.

Hmm, well, surely you believe that to be holy ~ really holy, as God is ~ is to be without sin. Do you believe you are perfectly holy, Spiritual Israelite?

No, PinSeeker, I do not. I explained above what it means for us to be holy. The writer of Hebrews referred to his "holy brethren". Do you think he was saying they were sinless, PinSeeker? Of course not. So, why are you asking me about what it means to be holy? The point is that it's a term that would only be used to refer to saved people, so what he was saying only applied to saved people.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Wow. The writer of Hebrews is making no bones about the fact that it is ~ is ~ the sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. The sinful, unbelieving heart always ~ always, if not immediately, then eventually, without exception ~ turns away from the living God. And he says "see to it that none of you has ~ has, not "develops," but has ~ a sinful unbelieving hart that turns away from the living God.

How could any of those that he called "holy" have had a sinful unbelieving heart? That makes no sense. And why would he warn them to see to it that they don't have a sinful, unbelieving heart if they supposedly had no choice in the matter? Why would he tell them to "encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness" if those who are "hardened by sin's deceitfulness" have no choice but to be ""hardened by sin's deceitfulness"? Your view makes Hebrews 3:12-14 completely pointless because it turns it into the writer warning his "holy brethren" about things they supposedly had no control over.

You know, I agree, but having it, even though it may weaken from time to time, is a guarantee, because the conviction ~ and our holding to it ~ is a work of the Holy Spirit, of God, Who does not fail.

Where does scripture teach this?

Right, because they have a false faith, not the gift of true faith that only comes from God. Ephesians 2 yet again: "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..."

Wait a minute here. This was in response to what I said about Gentiles being grafted into the cultivated olive tree in Romans 11 and later being cut off if they didn't continue to believe (Romans 11:17-22). Are you suggesting that you believe some of the Gentiles who were grafted into the olive tree were grafted in because of "a false faith"? Where does Paul ever indicate such a thing?

Nope. Again, Jesus, in John 15;16, says, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide." And, regarding His appointing us that we should go and bear fruit, Paul says the same thing in Ephesians 2, that "...we are (God's) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." It's God's work in us, His making us a new creation, as Paul says here and in 2 Corinthians 5:17, that "...if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." God is the Creator. We do not create ~ or un-create ~ ourselves.

Nope. Again, Jesus even chose Judas Iscariot, but was Judas Iscariot saved in the end? No.

Yes, God has works that He prepared for us to do that we SHOULD walk in them. We should, but does that mean we automatically will until the end of our lives? No, it doesn't say that.

Both individual and corporate.

You say this even though the OT scripture that was quoted in relation to Jacob and Esau spoke of the two nations that would come from them. Do you actually think that Paul was saying that Jacob was chosen to salvation and Esau was not? Do you think he was saying that God loved Jacob and literally hated Esau? I hope not because that is definitely not the case. When it says He hated Esau it does not mean He literally hated him. It just means He blessed Esau less than Jacob because the nation He chose to bring salvation through was Israel instead of Edom.

The word "hate" is not always used literally in scripture. Take this verse, for example:

Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Was Jesus talking about literally hating our fathers, mothers, wives, children, brothers, sisters and our own lives here? Of course not, right? He was speaking in a relative sense. He was saying we should not love our family members more than we love Him. Our priority should be to love Him more than anyone or anything else, in other words. The word "hate" should be understood similarly when it comes to Jacob and Esau.

Great! And, our election does not depend on what we do or say by strength or by will, but on our receiving God's mercy and compassion. Many say quite the opposite, that God's mercy and compassion depend on man's strength and will, which is directly antithetical to Romans 9, especially 9:16.

You are misinterpreting Romans 9:16 badly. Once again, you are interpreting a verse without taking other scripture into account. All Romans 9:15-16 means is that no one decides who God will have mercy on except for God Himself. But, if you continue reading you can see in Romans 11:32 that God wants to have mercy on all people. No one decided that for Him. But, He doesn't have mercy on all people? Why not? It's not because He doesn't want to. It's because some people are not willing to put their faith in His Son. God condems people for that (John 3:18). Why would He do that if they have no choice in the matter? Do you really think God punishes people for merely doing what they were made to do? Or that He punishes people for not doing what they are not even capable of doing? That makes no sense.

Right, may, but not will. Jesus's atonement is sufficient for all, but not necessarily effectual for all.

And why is that? It can't be that it's not effectual for all because He did not want it to be effectual for all. Otherwise, it would not be sufficient for all. Scripture says He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). Scripture also says this:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Jesus paid the price for literally all people, including these false prophets and false teachers that Peter alluded to here. So, why aren't all people saved? Because God doesn't want them all to be saved? No. Again, scripture indicates that Jesus sacrificed Himself and paid the price for all people.

So, why aren't all people saved? Because some people that Jesus died for and that God wants to be saved choose to deny "the sovereign Lord who bought them" and they bring "swift destruction on themselves". They only have themselves to blame for their destruction. If they had no ability to repent and believe, as Calvinism teaches, then they could blame God for not giving them faith. But, since they are responsible to choose whether to submit to God and put their trust in Christ or not, they alone are held responsible for their lack of faith. It makes no sense to hold people accountable and to condemn them for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) if they have no ability to even do so.

With regard to salvation, what is effectual is only what God intends ~ this is His purpose of election ~ which was, in Paul's words in Romans 9, "to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use... God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

You are again misinterpreting scripture. Pharaoh was used as an example of what Paul was talking about there. Did God choose to use Pharaoh as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction randomly from birth? Or did God choose him because his heart was already hardened towards Him before God started using him as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction? I believe it is the latter. And, again, Paul indicated that God wants to have mercy on all people which is why He bounds everyone over to disobedience (Romans 11:32). Calvinism makes God's desires out to be disingenuous.

 

[PinSeeker]

All Revelation 7 is saying is that after the Second Coming, there are 144k walking around on earth redeemed out of Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and the rest are in Paradise.

Oh, my. Wow.

There will always be those on the earth, and those in Paradise, until the NHNE, which is still a thousand years away, which you also deny.

Well, yes, I definitely deny that "understanding" of things.

Grace and peace to you, Timtofly.

 

[PinSeeker]

Well then, PinSeeker, why do you think that people cannot fall away after truly repenting when that is exactly what Hebrews 6:4-6 says?

Because it's not, SI. In verse 4, the writer specifies "those who have once been enlightened... tasted the heavenly gift... and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come," and it is very possible to do any or all of these things and not have been born again of the Spirit, which, as I'm sure you know, Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 8 cannot happen if one is not born again of the Spirit. And besides that, nothing is impossible for God, as I said before, pointing out several passages in the Bible that say this very thing. If one is not born again of the Holy Spirit, even though he or she may have been enlightened to any degree concerning God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, etc., and experienced all these things, if one is not born again of the Holy Spirit at some point, he or she will fall away. But if he or she is born again of the Spirit, then he or she will not fall away, because he or she will no longer be a slave to unrighteousness but a slave to righteousness, no longer of the devil but of God. And this is exactly what John is saying in 1 John 2:19, that those who do fall away go out from us, but they are not of us, for if they were of us, they would continue with us, but they go out, and it becomes plain that they all are not of us.

It says anyone who does fall away after having truly repented cannot be renewed again unto repentance.

Right, they cannot ~ they will not ~ restore themselves to repentance.

No one believes that when we are born again/born of the Spirit (I'm talking about the actual act that makes us born again/of the Spirit) that it's an act of the flesh or the will of man. It's something that the Holy Spirit does. But, the thing people disagree about is whether that occurs before or after we put our faith in Christ. The following strongly suggests that our faith comes first...

Yes, and before one is born again of the Spirit, he or she is dead ~ dead ~ in his sin, which is necessarily without faith. Perhaps you don't mean to be, but you're making faith out to be a work of man rather than of God. We cannot re-separate, as it were, faith, out of Ephesians 2:8, as you do below. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 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,

Faith comes by hearing, yes. Faith precedes belief, but never fails to result in belief. In the case of faith and belief, we believe what we are assured by God of, so yes, once we are assured of things hoped for and convicted of things unseen ~ this is the work of God ~ then, yes, of our own free will and accord, we will believe. And yes, at that point, we are sealed in the Spirit... and thus will not fall away. Do you see? You even say this, and then you refute it. That's quite astounding.

As for John 6:44, do you not also take John 12:32 into account?


John 12:32 And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

Did Jesus contradict Himself here? No, of course not. By looking at BOTH John 6:44 and John 12:32 rather than just John 6:44 alone, we can conclude that the Father draws people to Jesus who do not resist Jesus's drawing of them to Himself. And His drawing, which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, can be resisted as we can see here when Stephen rebukes the unbelieving Jews shortly before they stoned him to death:

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Yes, those whose hearts and ears are still uncircumcised ~ which as you agree, I think, is a work of the Holy Spirit ~ those whose hearts remain in this condition will always resist the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in Romans 2:29, circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit. Those who have been born again, have become circumcised of the heart, do not ~ again, will not ~ resist the Holy Spirit.

This verse is related specifically to the 12 disciples...

We are all disciples ~ followers ~ of Jesus.

...you continue to only look at part of the picture instead of the whole picture.

And I say the very same of you.

Yes, no one can take us away from Him. But, does that mean we can't leave Him?

In the sense that we won't leave Him, yes. We are kept in the power of the Spirit of God, Who, as Paul says in exhorting us to make our calling and election sure, is working in us ~ to will and work for God's pleasure. God is working in us so that we then will and work for His good pleasure.

"the (God-given, as we see in Ephesians 2:8, the gift of God) assurance of things hoped for, and conviction (by the Holy Spirit, Who convicts) of things unseen................... You're adding things to the verse that aren't there. You shouldn't do that. It doesn't say that it's God-given.

Who assures you of these hoped-for things, Spiritual Israelite? Do you assure yourself? If so, what kind of assurance of that? The very statement made by the writer of Hebrews is clear ~ we hope for these things, but we, in and of ourselves, can only hope for them; the assurance has to come from outside us, it has to be objectively given to us! Yes, we can convince ourselves of most anything. But I say if this assurance is self-given, then it isn't really any assurance at all; we are still left only hoping. You can assure yourself of things seen, because you see them, but not the unseen. Faith is not blind. To say that we walk by faith and not by sight is not to say that we walk blindly.

You are adding that. Scripture repeatedly refers to our faith, assurance, confidence, conviction that we decide to have or not in response to God's drawing and His reaching out to us.

Here again, you may not mean to be doing this ~ so don't accuse me of "resorting to lying about you" ~ but you are at least inadvertently making this faith, assurance, and conviction out to be a work of man, man's contribution to his own salvation, which then necessarily means that man deserves at least some measure of credit and even praise for his salvation. Such is absolutely not the case.

I'm not convinced at all by what you're saying here.

Of course not. It's too bad, but I can't really be concerned with that.

Are you suggesting that you believe some of the Gentiles who were grafted into the olive tree were grafted in because of "a false faith"?

I... don't even know how such a question would pop into your mind.

Yes, God has works that He prepared for us to do that we SHOULD walk in them.

It's what God created us to do. And because He is at work in us, we will, of our own free will and accord. We love, because He first loved us. And I would say to that the "should" here also is very indicative of our responsibility to do so.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

Do you actually think that Paul was saying that Jacob was chosen to salvation and Esau was not?

Paul is talking about the two in direct relation to his exposition of God's election, so yes. And, to your point, those of Jacob, whom God renamed Israel, are elect of God and chosen unto salvation, while those of Esau are not.

When it says He hated Esau it does not mean He literally hated him. It just means He blessed Esau less than Jacob because the nation He chose to bring salvation through was Israel instead of Edom.

Agree. Well, and give salvation to all of Israel and not those of Edom. Sure.

You are misinterpreting Romans 9:16 badly.

And I say you are refusing, for one reason or another, to see it for what it is.

Once again, you are interpreting a verse without taking other scripture into account.

Even though I'm quoting all over the Bible things that closely relate to one another. I see...

All Romans 9:15-16 means is that no one decides who God will have mercy on except for God Himself. But, if you continue reading you can see in Romans 11:32 that God wants to have mercy on all people. No one decided that for Him. But, He doesn't have mercy on all people? Why not? It's not because He doesn't want to. It's because some people are not willing to put their faith in His Son.

Ah! So, God's mercy depends on our willingness ~ which is in direct contrast to Romans 9:16, that it (God's election) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. And you're making faith out to be a work of man (see above). Both absolutely contradictive of Scripture.

Why would He do that if they have no choice in the matter?

It's not about choice. It's about the natural condition of the heart. And if it remains as it is, one's choice in "the matter" will always be... unwise. It's not about one's choice, it's about God's mercy.

Do you really think God punishes people for merely doing what they were made to do?

Do you think God made people to sin? Surely not... Or that God is the author of sin? Surely, surely not...

Or that He punishes people for not doing what they are not even capable of doing?

A very interesting way to put it... Those whom He chooses before the foundation of the world, before, in Paul's words in Romans 9, they have done anything good or bad, so that His purpose of election might stand, he has mercy on. Or, to use your words here, He "makes them capable of doing" what they previously would never have done, in that he gives them new birth in the Spirit. In God's own words in Ezekiel 36, He gives us a new heart, and a new spirit He puts within us; He removes the heart of stone from our flesh and gives us a heart of flesh, and He puts His Spirit within us and causes us to walk in His statutes and be careful to obey His rules, and we are His people, and He is our God, and He delivers us from all our uncleannesses.

And why is that? It can't be that it's not effectual for all because He did not want it to be effectual for all. Otherwise, it would not be sufficient for all. Scripture says He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). Jesus paid the price for literally all people, including these false prophets and false teachers that Peter alluded to here. So, why aren't all people saved? Because God doesn't want them all to be saved? No. Again, scripture indicates that Jesus sacrificed Himself and paid the price for all people.

This is the sufficiency of Jesus's sacrifice. In this sense, yes, Jesus's sacrifice was for all of humanity. But in the sense that He died only for the ones whom God, from all eternity, chose in Christ, Christ's atonement is limited in that sense. Both are true.

So, why aren't all people saved? Because some people that Jesus died for and that God wants to be saved choose to deny "the sovereign Lord who bought them" and they bring "swift destruction on themselves". They only have themselves to blame for their destruction.

Hmmm... Well, here again, there is a certain sense in which I agree with you, but another in which I do not. I do agree that they have only themselves to blame; this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1, which you probably know. But in that very chapter, Paul is very clear that some "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator... " and "...(f)or this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions... since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done..." so then, yes, they are without excuse.

If they had no ability to repent and believe, as Calvinism teaches...

That's not what Calvinism teaches, Spiritual Israelite. It's a caricature of Calvinism, constructed so that it can easily be knocked down, which is the definition of a strawman argument. If one wants to validly argue against something, they should acknowledge what it is and argue against it accordingly, but Arminians don't do that for some reason...

It makes no sense to hold people accountable and to condemn them for not believing in Christ (John 3:18) if they have no ability to even do so...

It's not that they have no ability to do so... As Paul says in Romans 5, sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. So, in a real sense, naturally, NO ONE has the ability to do so. But... Regarding some:

• "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as 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, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of His will, according to His purpose, which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth. In Him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory." (Ephesians 1:3-14)
• "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." (Ephesians 2:4-11)

I say again here regarding the Ephesians 2 passage, we cannot re-separate faith from the whole of the gift of God.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

Did God choose to use Pharaoh as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction randomly from birth?

Nothing God does is random in any way. Everything He does, He does for His own glory. He apparently made Pharaoh to be as he was and hardened him accordingly. So it is with all those Whom God does not choose from all eternity that they should be holy and blameless before Him, who He gives up to, in Paul's words in Romans 1, dishonorable passions.

Or did God choose him because his heart was already hardened towards Him before God started using him as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction? I believe it is the latter.

LOL! Okay, yeah, I at least kind of agree with you here... Naturally, all of our hearts are hardened towards Him from birth. But not all are vessels of wrath; those who are not will, at some point in their lives, because of God's mercy and in His grace, have their heart of stone removed and replaces with a heart of flesh (Ezekiel 36).

And, again, Paul indicated that God wants to have mercy on all people which is why He bounds everyone over to disobedience (Romans 11:32).

Well, I don't disagree here, SI. But out of those "all," still, He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

Calvinism makes God's desires out to be disingenuous

LOL! No, but I can't do anything about your perceptions. You are certainly your own person.

Round and round we go...

Grace and peace to you!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Because it's not, SI. In verse 4, the writer specifies "those who have once been enlightened... tasted the heavenly gift... and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come," and it is very possible to do any or all of these things and not have been born again of the Spirit, which, as I'm sure you know, Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 8 cannot happen if one is not born again of the Spirit.

What evidence do you have to back this up? In Hebrews 6:4-6 Paul is still talking to the same people he calls "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling" in Hebrews 3:1. How can an unsaved person possibly be included among the "holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling"? I completely disagree with that idea.

But if he or she is born again of the Spirit, then he or she will not fall away, because he or she will no longer be a slave to unrighteousness but a slave to righteousness, no longer of the devil but of God. And this is exactly what John is saying in 1 John 2:19, that those who do fall away go out from us, but they are not of us, for if they were of us, they would continue with us, but they go out, and it becomes plain that they all are not of us.

How can it be said that someone who is "not of us" and was never "of us" has fallen away? The fall away is to apostasize which has to do with someone turning away from the faith they previously had. John was writing about people who didn't have faith in the first place, so it can't be said that they fell away (apostasized).

Right, they cannot ~ they will not ~ restore themselves to repentance.

To not be able to be restored to repentance implies that they had repented before they fell away. Your attempt to claim that they didn't truly repent if they fall away is not a convincing argument at all.

Yes, and before one is born again of the Spirit, he or she is dead ~ dead ~ in his sin, which is necessarily without faith. Perhaps you don't mean to be, but you're making faith out to be a work of man rather than of God.

Yes, I mean to be doing that because that is what scripture teaches. Scripture refers to "your faith" and "our faith" MANY times. Why would it do that if it's not actually...you know...your faith? I wonder how you would answer someone's question about how to be saved. Can you tell me how you would answer that question if someone asked you?

Here is how I would answer it:

Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. 28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

And I would explain what it means to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" after that. But, the point here is that Paul and Silas did not tell the prison keeper that there was nothing he could do to be saved, as you believe. They said he had to do something, which is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ".

They didn't say God would do that for him, they told him he had to do that. So, what is your problem with the idea of a person being responsible to willingly choose to put his or her faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? Scripture doesn't teach that salvation is not by faith, it teaches that salvation is not by works. Faith is not a work or else Paul wouldn't have said in Ephesians 2:8 that salvation is by grace through faith but not by works. Clearly, Paul differentiated between faith and works, so why don't you?

We cannot re-separate, as it were, faith, out of Ephesians 2:8, as you do below. Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2).

Scripture doesn't teach that God gives us faith. That belief results from a mistinterpretation of Ephesians 2:8. The gift referenced there is not faith, but rather is salvation which comes by God's grace through our faith but not by our works. As for Hebrews 12:2, that is just yet another verse that Calvinism misinterprets because of doctrinal bias.

Do you ever look at other translations besides the KJV or are you one of those KJV-only people? The NIV translation of Hebrews 12:2 says Jesus is "the pioneer and perfecter of faith". The NASB translation says Jesus is "the originator and perfecter of the faith". Young's Literal Translation says He is "the author and perfecter of faith". The word "our" was added by the KJV translators. It does not belong there and is not there in the original Greek.

The verse is not saying that our faith somehow comes from Him and is given to us and then is perfected by Him. No, it's saying that He is the One who originated the Christian faith (Christianity) and He is the One who we put our faith in. He is the perfecter of the faith because He makes everyone who believes in Him perfect by way of taking away our sins by His sacrifice. That verse has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus giving faith to us rather than us having to freely and willingly choose to believe.

If your interpretation of verses like those was correct, then verses like this would make no sense:

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.

In your doctrine no one can desire to freely take the water of life. In your doctrine the water of life is just given to people rather than people freely and willingly taking and accepting it after being offered to them.

Faith comes by hearing, yes. Faith precedes belief, but never fails to result in belief. In the case of faith and belief, we believe what we are assured by God of, so yes, once we are assured of things hoped for and convicted of things unseen ~ this is the work of God ~ then, yes, of our own free will and accord, we will believe.

I'm sorry, but this is just pure gibberish. You will not find any scripture that you can use to support what you're saying here. I guarantee that.

And yes, at that point, we are sealed in the Spirit... and thus will not fall away. Do you see? You even say this, and then you refute it. That's quite astounding.

No, I don't see what you see. I think that is obvious by now. Being sealed with the Holy Spirit relates to the Holy Spirit coming to dwell in us. It doesn't mean that our faith in Christ is sealed til the end of our lives at that point. You read that into it.

My point was simply that faith precedes being born again, as this passage indicates:

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 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,

It seems that you are trying to do anything you can to get around what this passage teaches, which is that faith comes first and then we are "sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise". Surely, we are not born again until we are sealed with the Holy Spirit, so this shows that faith comes first before we are born again.

Yes, those whose hearts and ears are still uncircumcised ~ which as you agree, I think, is a work of the Holy Spirit ~ those whose hearts remain in this condition will always resist the Holy Spirit.

That is not true. Think about this. You are making a joke out of the Holy Spirit's work. You say that certain people resist the Holy Spirit because they are not capable of doing anything but resisting Him. If that was the case then why does the Holy Spirit even bother with those people at all? That would not make any sense. It would mean the Spirit of God likes to waste His time doing pointless and fruitless things. But, we know that is not the case.

Having an uncircumcised heart does not prevent someone from confessing their sins and putting their faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior. It prevents them from living the kind of life that He wants us to live. Our responsibility is not to change ourselves and make ourselves righteous, our responsibility is to acknowledge that we are not righteous and need Jesus to save us and forgive our sins by way of His sacrifice for us. You know, the sacrifice He made for "the whole world" (1 John 2:1-2)?

As Paul says in Romans 2:29, circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit. Those who have been born again, have become circumcised of the heart, do not ~ again, will not ~ resist the Holy Spirit.

As far as what I said that you are replying to here, I wasn't talking about those who have been born again resisting the Spirit, I was talking about unbelievers who haven't been born again resisting the Holy Spirit. Why did Stephen get upset at them for doing so if they couldn't help but do so? Why does God punish people who resist the Holy Spirit if they can't help but to do so and can't ever do anything but resist the Holy Spirit? That makes no sense. It has to be that Stephen was upset with them because he knew they were capable of submitting to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit but they decided to reject Him instead, to their shame.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We are all disciples ~ followers ~ of Jesus.

You didn't address my point. This was in response to what I said regarding John 15:16. You think that verse is saying that all who are disciples of Jesus are chosen to salvation and we didn't choose Him and, yet, Jesus said this about one of those He had chosen:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

This contradicts your understanding of John 15:16 because Jesus called one of those who He had chosen "a devil". Clearly, Judas Iscariot was not saved, so the idea that He was talking about being chosen to salvation is clearly not true. The twelve were chosen to be His closest disciples. That is the context of what Jesus was saying in John 15:16.

In the sense that we won't leave Him, yes. We are kept in the power of the Spirit of God, Who, as Paul says in exhorting us to make our calling and election sure, is working in us ~ to will and work for God's pleasure. God is working in us so that we then will and work for His good pleasure.

But, He can be resisted, as scripture makes clear. We our responsible to cooperate and submit ourselves to Him. Taking away man's responsibility gives him an excuse for his behavior, but scripture says man does not have any excuse for not being thankful to God and glorifying Him as God (Romans 1:18-20).

Who assures you of these hoped-for things, Spiritual Israelite?

God does. As long as I continue to hold the beginning of my confidence steadfast until the end of my life (Hebrews 3:14). That is my responsibility to continue submitting to Him and putting my faith and trust in Him alone. He doesn't do that for me. I am not a puppet or a robot. Having a personal, loving relationship with God is impossible without free will. Love is not forced.

Here again, you may not mean to be doing this ~ so don't accuse me of "resorting to lying about you" ~ but you are at least inadvertently making this faith, assurance, and conviction out to be a work of man, man's contribution to his own salvation, which then necessarily means that man deserves at least some measure of credit and even praise for his salvation. Such is absolutely not the case.

You are making things up here. Nowhere does scripture teach that salvation is not of faith that we could boast about. It only teaches that salvation is not of works that we could boast about (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:26-28). Faith is not a work which is why faith is contrasted with works in scripture (Ephesians 2:8-10, James 2, etc.).

Think about this. If someone willingly chooses to humble themselves and acknowledge that they are sinners who can't save themselves (can't do the work necessary to save themselves, can't atone for their own sins as only Jesus could) while placing their faith in Jesus alone as their Lord and Savior while surrendering their lives to Him, how is that something they can take credit for their salvation? It makes no sense that someone who humbled themselves and acknowledged that they can't save themselves would then turn around and try to take credit for saving themselves.

I... don't even know how such a question would pop into your mind.

This was in response to me asking "Are you suggesting that you believe some of the Gentiles who were grafted into the olive tree were grafted in because of "a false faith"? I asked this because of what you said, of course. You talked about Gentiles being cut off because of false faith. Doesn't that imply that you believe some Gentiles are grafted in because of false faith? If not, then what were you talking about?

How about you just answer these questions. How is someone grafted into the olive tree that Paul wrote about in Romans 11? And what is it that causes someone to be cut off from the olive tree?

It's what God created us to do. And because He is at work in us, we will, of our own free will and accord. We love, because He first loved us. And I would say to that the "should" here also is very indicative of our responsibility to do so.

This makes no sense. How is it that we will obey Him "of our own free will and accord" if He is the One who makes us obey Him? You must have a strange definition of "free will and accord" because in my view it implies that someone has the ability to either choose to obey and love Him or rebel against Him.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ah! So, God's mercy depends on our willingness ~ which is in direct contrast to Romans 9:16, that it (God's election) depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, Who has mercy. And you're making faith out to be a work of man (see above). Both absolutely contradictive of Scripture.

You are completely ignoring some of what I'm saying and misrepresenting my belief as a result. I explained that it was entirely up to God to decide who He would have mercy on, but it just so happens that He decided to give the opportunity to all people to receive His mercy. That is what Romans 11:32 indicates.

But, you continually interpret scripture in isolation without taking all of scripture into account. So, you end up interpreting one verse, like Romans 9:16, in such a way that contradicts what another verse, like Romans 11:32, indicates. You also fail to acknowledge that scripture talks about election in relation to Jacob and Esau in terms of the nations that descended from them and not about their personal election to salvation (or not).

It's not about choice. It's about the natural condition of the heart. And if it remains as it is, one's choice in "the matter" will always be... unwise. It's not about one's choice, it's about God's mercy.

Where does scripture teach what you're saying here? Was Joshua mistaken when he said this:

Joshua 24:14 Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. 15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Was Joshua mistaken to think that the Israelites had no ability to choose between either fearing and serving the Lord or serving false gods?

Do you think God made people to sin? Surely not... Or that God is the author of sin? Surely, surely not...

Of course not. So, why does God punish people for sin? Not because He made them sin, but because they willingly chose to sin, right? You believe in a doctrine which implies that God punishes people for sinning against Him even though those people supposedly have no ability to to humble themselves and repent of their sins. How does that make any sense? It doesn't. It only makes sense to punish someone if they either did something they shouldn't have done despite having the ability to have chosen to do the right thing instead or if they didn't do something that they should have done despite having the ability to do so.

A very interesting way to put it... Those whom He chooses before the foundation of the world, before, in Paul's words in Romans 9, they have done anything good or bad, so that His purpose of election might stand, he has mercy on.

Nope. Again, you are badly misinterpreting Romans 9. Paul was talking about how election would come through the line of Jacob rather than Esau. The old testament talks about two nations when it talks about the older serving the younger. That isn't even talking about Jacob and Esau as individuals. You should not just ignore that. What Paul was saying in Romans 9 is that salvation would come through the line of Jacob rather than Esau and that was by God' choice and not man's. It had nothing to do with anything Jacob or Esau did. And we know that salvation did come through the line of Jacob since Jesus was a Jew.

Or, to use your words here, He "makes them capable of doing" what they previously would never have done, in that he gives them new birth in the Spirit. In God's own words in Ezekiel 36, He gives us a new heart, and a new spirit He puts within us; He removes the heart of stone from our flesh and gives us a heart of flesh, and He puts His Spirit within us and causes us to walk in His statutes and be careful to obey His rules, and we are His people, and He is our God, and He delivers us from all our uncleannesses.

This happens after we put our faith in Christ, according to Ephesians 1:12-13. Unless you somehow think that we are given a new heart before being sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which I don't think would make any sense.

This is the sufficiency of Jesus's sacrifice. In this sense, yes, Jesus's sacrifice was for all of humanity. But in the sense that He died only for the ones whom God, from all eternity, chose in Christ, Christ's atonement is limited in that sense. Both are true.

This makes no sense whatsoever. It seems like you're just saying this to avoid having to deal with a major hole in your doctrine. You are making things up that are not taught anywhere in scripture in order to avoid the unpleasantness of the ramifications of your doctrine.

What does it even mean to say that Jesus's sacrifice was for all of humanity and then turn around and say "that He died only for the ones whom God, from all eternity, chose in Christ"? That is completely contradictory. He either sacrificed Himself for all humanity or He didn't. You can't have it both ways.

Hmmm... Well, here again, there is a certain sense in which I agree with you, but another in which I do not. I do agree that they have only themselves to blame; this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1, which you probably know. But in that very chapter, Paul is very clear that some "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator... " and "...(f)or this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions... since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done..." so then, yes, they are without excuse.

But, could they have chosen to not exchange the truth about God for a lie? If not, then how can you say they are without excuse?

It says in Romans 1:21 that they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.". So, they were not born "vain in their imaginations" with darkened hearts, they "became" that way. Was that the only way they could become? No! Otherwise, it wouldn't say they were without excuse for being vain in their imaginations and so on. Your doctrine says that they couldn't help but be vain in their imaginations, but if that was the case then that would be a good excuse for being that way. Yet, it says they had no excuse for being that way.

That's not what Calvinism teaches, Spiritual Israelite. It's a caricature of Calvinism, constructed so that it can easily be knocked down, which is the definition of a strawman argument. If one wants to validly argue against something, they should acknowledge what it is and argue against it accordingly, but Arminians don't do that for some reason...

You said this in response to me saying "If they had no ability to repent and believe, as Calvinism teaches..". So, you're trying to tell me that you believe that those who do not repent and believe have the ability to do so? Does that not imply then that they choose to not repent and believe even though they could choose to repent and believe instead? Which implies free will that you deny exists (in the way I understand it, at least)?

It's not that they have no ability to do so... As Paul says in Romans 5, sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. So, in a real sense, naturally, NO ONE has the ability to do so.

You continue to make contradictory statements. It's making my head spin. You first say "it's not that they have no ability to do so" and then you say "NO ONE has the ability to do so". Wow. It seems like you can't make up your mind what it is that you actually believe.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nothing God does is random in any way. Everything He does, He does for His own glory. He apparently made Pharaoh to be as he was and hardened him accordingly.

Show me where scripture teaches that God made Pharaoh to be as he was in terms of God predetermining that Pharaoh would be the way he was even before he was born.

So it is with all those Whom God does not choose from all eternity that they should be holy and blameless before Him, who He gives up to, in Paul's words in Romans 1, dishonorable passions.

Why is it that even though they knew God they have no excuse for not being thankful to God and not glorifying Him as God? Wouldn't it be a valid excuse if they are the way they are simply because God made them that way and did not choose for them to be holy and blameless before Him? You say they have no choice in the matter because you don't believe in free will, so how can it be that they have no excuse? That makes no sense.

Also, in Romans 1, regarding the ones God gave up to "dishonorable passions", that they "became vain in their imaginations" resulting in their hearts being darkened and "became fools" who "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things". You say they were born that way and they had no choice but to be that way. Scripture says they became that way by choice and they have no excuse for the bad choices that they made.

LOL! Okay, yeah, I at least kind of agree with you here... Naturally, all of our hearts are hardened towards Him from birth.

Wrong. Where does scripture teach this? Show me. Good luck.

If what you said was true, then tell me why Jesus said this:

Matthew 19:13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

You say these little children were born with hardened hearts towards God and, yet, Jesus said "of such is the kingdom of heaven". Surely, He was not saying that the kingdom of heaven was of such that are hardened towards Him from birth! LOL! Jesus clearly had a very different understanding of how people are from birth than you do! Are we born with a tendency to sin? Sure. Are we born with hardened hearts towards God? No. Otherwise, what Jesus said would not make any sense.

People are not born with hardened hearts towards God. You need to read Romans 1 more carefully because your current belief completely contradicts what is written there.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

People are not born with hardened hearts towards God as you falsely claim, they become "vain in their imaginations" and become fools who change the truth of God for a lie and their hearts become darkened and hardened as a result. Since Paul said they have no excuse for becoming that way, then we have to conclude they become that way by choice and not because they were born that way and can't help but be that way.

Well, I don't disagree here, SI. But out of those "all," still, He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion... He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills.

What do you think it means in Romans 11:32 when it says "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."? We know it's talking about literally all people, right? We know that all people sin and fall short of the glory of God, so we know this is saying that God concludes all people in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all people. So, what is the reason that He doesn't have mercy upon all people? Not because He doesn't want to. That would contradict Romans 11:32. The only thing that would make sense as a reason for that is because God gives people free will and makes them responsible to choose to either humble themselves before Him and receive His mercy as a result or to choose to reject Him and not receive His mercy as a result and to be punished and experience His wrath instead.

LOL! No, but I can't do anything about your perceptions. You are certainly your own person.

That's for sure. Here's one thing we can agree on, at least.

Round and round we go...

Because we freely choose to do that.

Grace and peace to you!

And to you as well.

 

[PinSeeker]

The writer of Hebrews, in Hebrews 3 and 6, is assuming that who he is writing to are brothers and sisters in Christ, just as a preacher today assumes he is preaching to brothers and sisters in Christ. But he knows ~ or should, anyway ~ that some who hear his letter read, even though in the church at present are not truly regenerate of heart ~ just as a preacher today preaching a sermon, even though he may address them as brothers and sisters, knows ~ or should, anyway ~ that not all in his congregation are truly regenerate of heart. It is what it is.

John says, SI, that because they were not of us, they went out, proving they are not of us. They did not and do not have the same saving faith we do. This is falling away. They thought they had faith and even professed it, presumably, but never really had true faith; they thought they were with us, and we all thought they were of us, but they fell away, proving that they were not of us. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you; it seems willful ignorance to me, but maybe not. Falling away in and of itself is not apostasy. The very definition of apostasy is the total rejection of Christianity by a person who, having at one time professed the Christian faith, publicly rejects it. The result of that apostasy is their falling away, their going out from among the faithful.

True repentance is of the Holy Spirit, in faith. Paul says in Romans 2:4, "...do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" God brings it about in us by the conviction of the Spirit.

Saving faith is not a work of man but of God. "For by grace (a) you have been saved (b) through faith (c). And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." By grace you have been saved through faith. You agree that (a) the grace is from God, (b) the saving is from/by God, but then you separate faith (c) back out of that whole thing and make it out to be a work of man. It's certainly ~ and obviously ~ not a work of man. Yes, it absolutely is our faith, but... when someone gives you a Christmas gift, SI, that gift is yours, for sure, but you did not give it to yourself; you were not yourself the giver. God is the Creator and Giver, as we see in 1 Corinthians 12:5-11, notably, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills."

NOTE: This is not to say that some Christians have faith and some do not. All Christians have this saving faith, but the faith of some is stronger than that of others. And in that case, it is the responsibility of the one stronger in faith to encourage and help those weaker in faith... all these gifts of the Spirit are for the common good. Again, God empowers all gifts of His Holy Spirit in Christians as He wills and apportions to each as He wills.

Yet again, no one is denying that we have free will or that we make a choice, not even Paul in Romans 9:16, and not John Calvin or any Calvinist. But our choice is a result of ~ it depends on ~ God's having mercy and compassion. It's a matter of God, by His Spirit, changing the heart of stone to a heart of flesh, of His bringing the person from death in sin to life in Christ. This is being born again of the Spirit. As Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3:7-8, "Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 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."

I most certainly do distinguish between faith and works: our good works are a result ~ and the outward evidence ~ of the faith we've been given by God, that has been worked in us by the Holy Spirit, the natural outpouring of praise to God that He Himself brings about through His gracious work in us. This is what Paul goes on to say in that Ephesians 2 passage, that "we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." Paul also says, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:12-13), and also that the fruit we produce is of the Spirit, "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control...": (Galatians 5:22-23). John says "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ... (F)aith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead" (James 2:14-17).

Scripture absolutely does teach that God gives us faith many, many times over. As Paul says in Romans 11, "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." He's speaking specifically there of God's election, but the same applies to faith, because our having been saved through faith is by God's grace ~ "by grace we have been saved through faith, and this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works." The entire process is included, including faith. Faith does not precede being born again of the Spirit. The unintended effect of the Arminian understanding of this makes God's grace out to be something other than grace.

As for Hebrews 12:2, what you assign to Calvinism, I assign in the reverse to Arminianism. Even your quotes of other translations have key words like ‘pioneer’ and ‘author’ regarding Jesus and our faith. It matters not, really, whether the word ‘our’ is there or not, but in English it is properly included. It is our faith, but Jesus is the author of it. Our free and willing choice to believe inevitably follows. Regarding the “whosoever” of Revelation 22 (and John 3:16, and Romans 10:13), all are in the context of Joel 2:32, which reads, “…it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.” God’s calling is the key factor which brings about our calling on the Lord. The invitation is open, but only a few, those whom the Lord calls, will then call upon the Lord.

I do not say that certain people resist the Holy Spirit “because they are not capable of doing anything but resisting Him.” I do say that they will, in their own free will and accord, always resist Him, with regard to salvation and calling upon the Lord, because they have not been born again of the Spirit.

Our hearts are naturally hardened at birth, this is the human condition. Even David said, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Or, in the ESV, which I prefer, but it says the same thing, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” In Genesis 3, after the fall of Adam and Eve, the mother of all the living. They became dead in sin, just as God told Adam they would in Genesis 2:17, and all who have come after them are born in the same state.

And finally back to Romans 11:32 yet again. Read this carefully: “God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.” He may have, but Paul’s whole context is that he only has mercy on some, His elect.

What all this really boils down to is that Arminians do not (or will not allow themselves to) understand the real depth of the Fall of Adam and Eve. They do not (or will not allow themselves to) acknowledge just how the post-Fall human being (and creation itself) has fallen from grace. There is a reason why Jacobus Arminius made this his first point. If this is soft-pedalled to any degree, then it reduces God's majesty and grace and glory ~ and really God Himself ~ to something far less than it (He) really is. That... THAT... is the problem. If one is to accept what John Calvin called the Total depravity of man, then everything else...

• Unconditional election by God
• the Limited nature of Jesus's atonement, (even though unlimited in the sense of sufficiency)
• the Irresistable nature of God's grace and purpose in the giving of new birth of the Spirit
• and the Spirit-empowered Perseverence of the saints

...intensely logically, and inevitably, follows. Thomas Arminius is the one that came up with five points, not John Calvin, whose contributions were far, far greater in scope. Calvin merely (although it's no mere thing) refuted Arminius's five Scripturally faulty points.

That’s quite enough. Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The writer of Hebrews, in Hebrews 3 and 6, is assuming that who he is writing to are brothers and sisters in Christ, just as a preacher today assumes he is preaching to brothers and sisters in Christ. But he knows ~ or should, anyway ~ that some who hear his letter read, even though in the church at present are not truly regenerate of heart ~ just as a preacher today preaching a sermon, even though he may address them as brothers and sisters, knows ~ or should, anyway ~ that not all in his congregation are truly regenerate of heart. It is what it is.

Nope. You are not accepting what it actually says. The book of Hebrews is addressed specifically to saved people as only saved people could be described as "holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling". Also, the writer says about those who he is addressing that they profess and acknowledge Jesus "as our apostle and high priest". It's very clear He is addressing Christians there. Sure, others who were not Christians may have read the letter as well, but the message was not specifically directed to them.

John says, SI, that because they were not of us, they went out, proving they are not of us. They did not and do not have the same saving faith we do.

That is a different context than Hebrews 3 and 6. Those who "are not of us" and never were "of us" can't fall away. They have nothing to fall away from. To fall away means to turn away from the faith you previously had. The people you're talking about never had faith in the first place and were what John called "antichrists". You are not understanding what apostasy is.

This is falling away.

No, it is not. For someone to be among Christians while not being one themselves and then physically leave the group is not a case of falling away. They are not turning away from their faith in Christ. They never put their faith in Christ in the first place.

They thought they had faith and even professed it, presumably, but never really had true faith; they thought they were with us, and we all thought they were of us, but they fell away, proving that they were not of us. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you; it seems willful ignorance to me, but maybe not.

You wouldn't say this if you actually paid closer attention to what I've been saying. I have clearly explained my understanding of the difference between those who were never "of us" and then physically leave the church and those who were "of us" but then spiritually fell away because of losing their faith. John was not talking about people who were "of us" and then fell away. You can't fall away unless you have true faith in the first place because that is what apostasy is. It's going from having true faith and then later losing your faith for various reasons such as a lack of spiritual discipline and a lack of heeding the warnings given in passages like Hebrews 3:12-14.

Falling away in and of itself is not apostasy.

Yes, of course! But, you clearly do not understand what falling away means. You think that people who are never "of us" in the first place can somehow fall away. What are they falling away from? Nothing. The ones John mentioned never had faith to begin with, so how could they fall away from the faith? They physically left the company of true believers, but they didn't fall away spiritually since they were not "of us" in the first place. You can't fall away from the faith if you don't even have true faith in the first place. The people John described not only didn't have faith but actively denied Christ and he called them antichrists.

The very definition of apostasy is the total rejection of Christianity by a person who, having at one time professed the Christian faith, publicly rejects it.

Yes, exactly! Do you know what someone who professes Christ is called? A Christian. Such a person is saved if they truly put their faith in Him. Only someone who has true faith in the first place can fall away from their faith. That is what you are missing.

The result of that apostasy is their falling away, their going out from among the faithful.

No. Physically leaving the company of other believers is not apostasy. Losing your faith is apostasy.

True repentance is of the Holy Spirit, in faith. Paul says in Romans 2:4, "...do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?" God brings it about in us by the conviction of the Spirit.

Yes, of course. But, that can be resisted. We are responsible to respond to God's kindness with repentance and faith. It's not automatic that someone responds favorably to God's kindness with repentance and faith. This is one of the many things you're missing as it relates to this topic.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Do you think God's kindness was not being extended to these people that Stephen said were always resisting the Holy Spirit? Of course it was!

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

God offers salvation to all people which is why scripture says Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2), why scripture says God commands and desires all people to repent (Acts 17:30-31, 2 Peter 3:9) and why scripture says God desires for all people to be saved (1 Tim 1:3-6).

Saving faith is not a work of man but of God. "For by grace (a) you have been saved (b) through faith (c). And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." By grace you have been saved through faith. You agree that (a) the grace is from God, (b) the saving is from/by God, but then you separate faith (c) back out of that whole thing and make it out to be a work of man.

Wrong. Don't try to speak for me. It is salvation itself that is the gift of God. It is given by His grace and is received through our faith that we place in Jesus. Paul didn't say that we could boast because of faith, he said we could boast if it was of works. Faith and works are not the same no matter how hard you try to make that so. Faith is contrasted with works in that passage. Salvation occurs by grace through faith and it's after that when we start doing the works that God has prepared for us to do.

It's certainly ~ and obviously ~ not a work of man.

Scripture repeatedly refers to "your faith" and "our faith" and not "God's faith", so you're fighting an uphill battle here. We are responsible to humble ourselves and repent of our sins and acknowledge that we can't save ourselves and place our faith in Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. How is it something to boast about if we willingly choose to humble ourselves and acknowledge that we're sinners in need of a Savior and can't save ourselves? It's not. It isn't as though that just randomly happens. It happens in response to the grace God extends to us, which He extends to all people, as Paul said in Titus 2:11.

Yes, it absolutely is our faith, but... when someone gives you a Christmas gift, SI, that gift is yours, for sure, but you did not give it to yourself; you were not yourself the giver.

You choose to accept a gift or not. Does anyone force you to accept a gift? Do people shove gifts in your face and tell you have to take them? No. It is offered to you and then you choose whether to accept it or not. This is yet another thing that you are missing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

God is the Creator and Giver, as we see in 1 Corinthians 12:5-11, notably, "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills."

NOTE: This is not to say that some Christians have faith and some do not.

NOTE: It's not talking about saving faith at all. It's talking about faithfulness. Loyalty. It's an extra measure of faith that some need in order to do what God has for them to do. It is what some need in order for others to find them to be trustworthy so that they will follow their lead. It has nothing to do with the Spirit giving faith to someone in order to believe in Christ in the first place. Spiritual gifts are given after someone has already placed their faith in Christ and been born again.

All Christians have this saving faith, but the faith of some is stronger than that of others. And in that case, it is the responsibility of the one stronger in faith to encourage and help those weaker in faith... all these gifts of the Spirit are for the common good.

Are you even thinking about what you're saying here? You acknowledge yourself that the gift of faith or faithfulness is not something all Christians have. So, how can it be saving faith? It can't because all Christians have saving faith! You can't be a Christian without saving faith! So, saving faith is not at all what Paul was talking about there.

Again, God empowers all gifts of His Holy Spirit in Christians as He wills and apportions to each as He wills.

Of course. No one here would deny that. That is beyond the scope of the topic we're talking about. That is something He gives AFTER someone has been saved/born again, not something He gives to make someone saved/born again.

Yet again, no one is denying that we have free will or that we make a choice,

You are denying that! Either that or you don't even know what free will is. You don't believe that all people are free to make the choice to either accept or reject Christ with each choice being a viable option for all people. That is clear. You believe that the choice of whether someone is saved or not is God's alone. Why act like you believe otherwise? Please be honest here.

not even Paul in Romans 9:16, and not John Calvin or any Calvinist. But our choice is a result of ~ it depends on ~ God's having mercy and compassion.

And, again, He is willing to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:32). That was His choice to be willing to offer mercy to all people. No one made that choice for Him. He did that because He is love. You deny that because you believe He chooses to have mercy only on some people with the rest having no opportunity whatsoever of receiving His mercy. But, Romans 11:32 couldn't be true unless all people legitimately had the opportunity to receive His mercy. But, He makes people responsible to repent and believe in order to receive His mercy. That was His determination and His alone to make it that way.

Scripture absolutely does teach that God gives us faith many, many times over.

We couldn't be further apart on this. You've given examples where you THINK scripture does that and I've shown that it doesn't. It never does, let alone "many, many times over".

Please tell me, why is a person condemned for eternity for not having faith if the only way that they could have had faith is if God had given it to them, which He (supposedly) chose not to do? Since when is someone punished for not obeying God (not having faith as He requires) despite not even having the ability to do so?

As Paul says in Romans 11, "if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." He's speaking specifically there of God's election, but the same applies to faith, because our having been saved through faith is by God's grace ~ "by grace we have been saved through faith, and this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works." The entire process is included, including faith. Faith does not precede being born again of the Spirit. The unintended effect of the Arminian understanding of this makes God's grace out to be something other than grace.

Please tell me, how does it diminish God's grace at all by believing that God lovingly extends His grace to all people and makes them responsible to willingly choose to humble themselves and acknowledge their sinful, lost state in which they can't save themselves while expressing their need for Jesus as their Lord and Savior and putting their faith and trust in Him alone for salvation?

As for Hebrews 12:2, what you assign to Calvinism, I assign in the reverse to Arminianism. Even your quotes of other translations have key words like ‘pioneer’ and ‘author’ regarding Jesus and our faith. It matters not, really, whether the word ‘our’ is there or not, but in English it is properly included. It is our faith, but Jesus is the authSoor of it. Our free and willing choice to believe inevitably follows.

How is that a "free and willing choice" when it isn't possible in your view for us to make any other choice? That's ludicrous.

Regarding the “whosoever” of Revelation 22 (and John 3:16, and Romans 10:13), all are in the context of Joel 2:32, which reads, “…it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls.” God’s calling is the key factor which brings about our calling on the Lord. The invitation is open, but only a few, those whom the Lord calls, will then call upon the Lord.

What does this even mean? How can you say that "the invitation is open" if only a few are even able to accept it? That's not an open invitation at all. An open invitation implies that everyone being called/invited is capable of accepting it.

I do not say that certain people resist the Holy Spirit “because they are not capable of doing anything but resisting Him.”

You don't have to say it. That is what you believe. Why would you deny that? Do you believe that those who resist Him are capable of not resisting Him? No, right? So, why deny it?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I do say that they will, in their own free will and accord, always resist Him, with regard to salvation and calling upon the Lord, because they have not been born again of the Spirit.

LOL. How is that "free will" if there is no chance that they will do anything but resist Him? There's nothing free about that. Free will implies that someone is capable of choosing to either respond to the Holy Spirit with repentance and faith or to reject His call by resisting Him.

Our hearts are naturally hardened at birth, this is the human condition. Even David said, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).

We are born with a tendency to sin, but we are NOT "naturally hardened at birth". That is not taught anywhere in scripture. I already showed you that from scripture! Are you reading everything I'm saying? If we're all "naturally hardened at birth, then why did Jesus say this:

Matthew 19:13 Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. 14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

Was Jesus saying here that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these" that are hardened and have been hardened from birth?! Of course not! That would be ridiculous. Jesus would never have said that if people are hardened even from birth.

I showed you this passage:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Can you see here that people are not born futile in their thinking with "their foolish hearts" being darkened and they are not born fools who exchange "the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles". They BECOME that way. You continually interpret one verse or passage in isolation without being careful to not interpret it in such a way that contradicts any other scripture.

Or, in the ESV, which I prefer, but it says the same thing, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” In Genesis 3, after the fall of Adam and Eve, the mother of all the living. They became dead in sin, just as God told Adam they would in Genesis 2:17, and all who have come after them are born in the same state.

Being born with a tendency to sin and being born hardened by sin are two completely different things. People BECOME hardened by sin over time, they are not born that way. As I clearly showed using scripture. The verse you're quoting says nothing about someone being hardened at birth. You're continually reading things into scripture that aren't there.

And finally back to Romans 11:32 yet again. Read this carefully:

No, you read it carefully. I know what it's saying and I know that you don't.

“God has consigned all to disobedience, that He may have mercy on all.” He may have, but Paul’s whole context is that he only has mercy on some, His elect.

But, in your view, it's not true that He "may have mercy on all" people. In your view, He only may (and does) have mercy on the relative few He has decided to have mercy on while there is no chance at all that He "may have mercy" on anyone else. So, your understanding of Romans 11:32 is completely flawed.

What all this really boils down to is that Arminians do not (or will not allow themselves to) understand the real depth of the Fall of Adam and Eve.

That's a lie. You need to stick to just stating facts and not making up lies about those who disagree with you about these things.

They do not (or will not allow themselves to) acknowledge just how the post-Fall human being (and creation itself) has fallen from grace.

Another lie.

There is a reason why Jacobus Arminius made this his first point.

You're talking to me, not Jacobus Arminius. Let's leave him out of it. I'm not even sure if I agree with everything he believed. I just know I disagree with what Calvinism teaches and it seems that you agree with everything that Calvinism teaches.

If this is soft-pedalled to any degree, then it reduces God's majesty and grace and glory ~ and really God Himself ~ to something far less than it (He) really is. That... THAT... is the problem. If one is to accept what John Calvin called the Total depravity of man, then everything else...

It man was born totally depraved, as the false teacher John Calvin claimed, then I wonder if he ever read the passages I shared with you earlier from Matthew 19 and Romans 1 which clearly teach otherwise.

Matthew 19:14 Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

If the false teacher John Calvin was correct then that would mean Jesus said "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" who are totally depraved. That is totally ludicrous.

Unconditional election by God

Yet, scripture repeatedly teaches that election/salvation is conditional upon a person's responsibility to humble himself or herself and repent of his or her sins while placing his or her faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

• the Limited nature of Jesus's atonement, (even though unlimited in the sense of sufficiency)

This one makes no sense whatsoever. What does "unlimited in the sense of sufficiency" even mean? That is not taught anywhere in scripture. You had to make something up in order to distract attention away from how incredibly wrong the doctrine of limited atonement is. Scripture is very clear that "the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people" (Titus 2:11) and that God "wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4). There is no limit to Jesus's atonement.

He even paid the price for the false teaches and false prophets that Peter referenced here:

2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

• the Irresistable nature of God's grace and purpose in the giving of new birth of the Spirit

Another one that makes no sense at all and ignores much scripture.

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

 

[PinSeeker]

...

Breaking this up to make it more manageable...

FALLING AWAY​

​

"You are not accepting what it actually says."​

And I think the exact same of you, Spiritual Israelite.

"That is a different context than Hebrews 3 and 6."​

It's not; it's very much the same. We disagree.

"For someone to be among Christians while not being one themselves and then physically leave the group is not a case of falling away. They are not turning away from their faith in Christ. They never put their faith in Christ in the first place."​

Spiritual Israelite, we read and hear every day about supposed Christians leaving the church today ~ disavowing the faith they once said they had ~ that it makes our heads spin. This is exactly what was happening then. I'm sure many of these folks will actually say, "Yes, you know, I once believed and had faith, but realized otherwise, and that's why I left the church."

"...you clearly do not understand what falling away means."​

I don't accept what you think falling away means. And you will say the same to me, which is fine with me.

"Do you know what someone who professes Christ is called? A Christian."​

Well, that's what they call themselves, and that's what we call them, but it may turn out at some point that that's not true. This is falling away. Or, another possibility is that they profess Christ for a time, but then publicly renounce it (which is apostasy), but then come back again, so in that case, maybe they were a heart-regenerate Christian, but then had doubts for a time, but then it was reaffirmed in them in some way, in which case it only seemed for a time that they fell away. People travel different paths in life, for sure; some go back and forth several times. Free will is a funny thing, sometimes; we can change our minds many times over...

"Such a person is saved if they truly put their faith in Him."​

Saving faith is not something we manufacture in ourselves and give to God and that merits our salvation; that's quite opposite to what various passages in the Bible say. Consider the Biblical definition of faith again... "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). None of us can assure ourselves of things hoped for, because that's no assurance at all, but only what we might call wishful thinking. And none of us can convict ourselves of things we don't see. This assurance and conviction must be given to us, it must come from something or someone outside ourselves.

"Only someone who has true faith in the first place can fall away from their faith."​

If someone truly has the assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1), which is God's gift by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:9), he/she will never fall away, because he/she will exercise his/her free will against falling away, and this is because God/Jesus authors/pioneers and perfects/sustains our faith (Hebrews 12:2). He/she will make his/her calling and election sure because it is God working in him/her so that he/she works and wills for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13). And this is just a few verses after Paul has just said, He who begins a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ (Philippians 1:6). As Jude says, God is able to keep us from stumbling and present us blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy (Jude 24). Paul says also that those whom (God) foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified ... in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him Who loved us ... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:29-39).

"Physically leaving the company of other believers is not apostasy."​

Agreed; that's not what I said, Spiritual Israelite.

"Losing your faith is apostasy."​

Well now you're just denying the very definition ~ in any dictionary ~ of apostasy.

"God offers salvation to all people..."​

Absolutely! The outward call of the Gospel of Christ is to all people. But God does not call everyone inwardly by His Spirit. Not everyone is born again of the Spirit.

Grace and peace to you.