Calvinism / pre-destination

[John146]

Yes, but if we're all honest here we really cannot say that we truly know why we decided "yes" for God instead of "no." All that we can really do is describe the conversion. But the reason for our own conversion is a mystery. A person might say, "I was really touched by the Word that I heard preached on a particular day, and through a process of searching came to accept Christ," but this still doesn't account for what the faith-mechanism is for why you were touched, while Joe (who heard the same message) was not. As I understand scripture, it is nothing to do with any quality or character in a person that leads to faith, for faith itself is even a gift for which we cannot take credit. So the difference between Joe, who says "no" to Christ, and Bob who says "yes" to Christ, is not to be attributed to some lack in Joe, or some surplus in Bob. In other words it is not as if Bob has a higher Faith Quotient than Joe, and thus says "yes" to Christ. It has to do with something else that is operating. Otherwise free will ends up being a flip of the coin.

I don't draw conclusions solely based on my own experience or even the experiences of others. I try to base it solely on what is taught in scripture. You say faith itself is a gift and I disagree with that so we obviously don't interpret scripture in the same way. But at least you understand that we need to get to the truth of these matters from scripture and not just from our experiences.

[John146]

Well I have made my case as well as I can make it.

As have I. If we still disagree then so be it.

If I am not mistaken you acknowledge that God does infact:
1) pursue us and give us enough evidence to believe

Yes, but some decide not to believe despite that for various reasons. You're leaving many things out that aren't included in your 4 statements, so your 4 statements are an incomplete picture.

2) control the termination point in our lives when we can no longer accept him (death)

Sure. Why wouldn't it be up to Him as far as how much opportunity one has to repent?

3) controls things in our life that will bring new evidence or change us with circumstances in our lives

Right, but those things don't guarantee what someone will choose to believe. A person still has to choose regardless of what has been presented to them. The Pharisees had miracles performed right before their eyes but they still didn't believe because their hearts were hardened against Him.

4) is all knowing and knows what criteria would work if presented to us

Or whether nothing would work, such as in the case of some of the Pharisees. If miracles didn't persuade them then what would have worked for them?

To me, and I believe others, when I look at the above I see God in control.

He is in control as far as initiating things and holding people responsible and allowing things or not. But He doesn't control what decisions people make.

Does He MAKE us choose? NO.

And I see you agree with that last statement I made.

But He is in control of our lives, He knows when we will die, and He knows what it would take to save us and thus I am left with the mystery as to why God does not keep everyone alive long enough to bring circumstances in their lives that all would be saved.

Why are you assuming that if everyone was only allowed to live long enough then everyone would repent? I don't believe that is the case.

This is all I can muster on the subject but I hope it makes sense.

I understand your view, I just think you are still missing some things. But that's okay because you have acknowledged that you're still learning.

[Gadgeteer]

In study we need to approach the text in its most natural and literal sense...

"Literal" is not always at issue. In Romans9:18 taking it literally we might think that God hardens men TOWARDS sin and TOWARDS condemnation. But we know from the rest of Scripture that's not true; and we can prove "Semitic View" (Exodus 10:1 "God hardened Pharaoh", two verses earlier 9:34 "Pharoah hardened himself"). And yet, there is no such reason to not take Heb12:7-9 at face value, proving that a person can forfeit being "born-again"!

re tiles for both 'sides' if we come to the text with a predisposition that there are sides... so all I'm asking is this; what is Peter declaring in his opening statement? For if we read the text and take it at for what is says, does Peter preach the gospel and declare that God calls believers by the sanctifying work of the Spirit to obedience in Jesus Christ?

If we agree that "eklektos" is the same as "saved", then we are saved by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

who are chosen/saved ...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

So it's not "chosen-to-obey", it's "chosen:
1. According to the foreknowledge of God
2. by the sanctifying work of the Spirit
3. to/by/through obedience

Recognize also that "chosen TO", uses "eis" --- into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against 26, misc 322 appearances in Scripture.

That's what I read. Now if we agree that everything in God's word is truth, then this is one truth. Wouldn't it be best if we could line up as many tiles as we can to see how they relate instead of sorting out one type and declaring it better than the other type? For you have been giving your 'defense' with the scriptures you have been using all through out this thread for the one type of tile and now I'm offering another point for consideration. So all I'm asking is do we agree or disagree that Peter is declaring that God calls believers by the sanctifying work of the Spirit to obedience in Jesus Christ?

I don't agree that it conspicuously means "The Spirit sovereignly causes obedience".

Shall I put you down as a no, it doesn't mean what it says before I introduce another passage for tile consideration?

It means what it says; we must come to understanding what the Scriptrual meaning is.

[Redeemed by Grace]

"Literal" is not always at issue. In Romans9:18 taking it literally we might think that God hardens men TOWARDS sin and TOWARDS condemnation. But we know from the rest of Scripture that's not true; and we can prove "Semitic View" (Exodus 10:1 "God hardened Pharaoh", two verses earlier 9:34 "Pharoah hardened himself"). And yet, there is no such reason to not take Heb12:7-9 at face value, proving that a person can forfeit being "born-again"!
If we agree that "eklektos" is the same as "saved", then we are saved by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

who are chosen/saved ...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

So it's not "chosen-to-obey", it's "chosen:
1. According to the foreknowledge of God
2. by the sanctifying work of the Spirit
3. to/by/through obedience

Recognize also that "chosen TO", uses "eis" --- into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against 26, misc 322 appearances in Scripture.
I don't agree that it conspicuously means "The Spirit sovereignly causes obedience".
It means what it says; we must come to understanding what the Scriptrual meaning is.

Hmmm... Just a quick check here, the text should hold all the meaning one needs to understand it, so going to reference materials and other sources should fine tune the understandings and really not set or alter the understandings.So I do appreciate using these, but was it really necessary to dig so deep and yet come back to say no? You wander away to defend hardening as an example of literal and non-literal and not to the text of 1 Peter 1:1,2.

Oh Well... My next tile. Let's see what you see here then.

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now you should like this one better, at least I hope you do.... For John declares an action of man in concert to the declaration of God.... He have the right to become children of God to as many who received Jesus, as God bestowed the relationship of those who believe as His children, and this wasn't because of their will to be children of God, but under God's will they where born [again] of the will of God.

[Gadgeteer]

Yes, but if we're all honest here we really cannot say that we truly know why we decided "yes" for God instead of "no." All that we can really do is describe the conversion. But the reason for our own conversion is a mystery. A person might say, "I was really touched by the Word that I heard preached on a particular day, and through a process of searching came to accept Christ," but this still doesn't account for what the faith-mechanism is for why you were touched, while Joe (who heard the same message) was not. ...So the difference between Joe, who says "no" to Christ, and Bob who says "yes" to Christ, is not to be attributed to some lack in Joe, or some surplus in Bob. In other words it is not as if Bob has a higher Faith Quotient than Joe, and thus says "yes" to Christ. It has to do with something else that is operating. Otherwise free will ends up being a flip of the coin.

It has everything to do with something attributable to Joe, AND a surplus in Bob!

Consider these two passages:

"Since childhood you have known the sacred Scriptures which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." 2Tim3:15.

"You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me, and you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life. ...I know you, you have not the love of God in yourselves. ...How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, then you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you DO not believe Moses/ writings, how will you believe My words?" John5:39-47

"WS", here are two groups of people --- one group can be convicted by Scripture to belief in Jesus; can the other? Yes! They can, but they WILL not. And what is the difference? Jesus tells us!!!

•· They are unwilling to come to Jesus, BECAUSE they seek their own glory rather than God's
•· They WILL not believe Moses; IF they believed Moses, then they WOULD believe Jesus.
•· They do not love God.

That's it --- the greatest commandment is "love God" (Matt22:37); it is a command that God expects everyone to obey.


What was the purpose of Jesus' rebuke in John5:39-47? What was He trying to accomplish? Was He flapping His gums to those who were unpredestined and could never understand, wasting His words? Well, He certainly wasn't talking to the sovereignly-elected, who had been monergistically-regenerated and therefore already were willing to come to Jesus. No, He was admonishing them towards salvation!!!

All of His rebukes were to promote CHANGE. See Matt11:21-24, where "if the ancient cities had seen the miracles YOU have seen (water-into-wine, sick healed, fed the 3000 and 5000, walked on water, raised the dead) --- they would have BELIEVED. Why will it go better for the ANCIENT cities (who had not been fortunate enough to actually see Jesus), than for those who had seen Him but yet still refused to believe? Tell me how that fits "predestined-salvation" and "gifted-faith"? I can easily tell you how it fits voluntary faith and free-will-salvation!

As I understand scripture, it is nothing to do with any quality or character in a person that leads to faith, for faith itself is even a gift for which we cannot take credit.

Really? Where is "faith-to-salvation" a gift from God? Not in Eph2:8, where "that" does not connect to "that-faith". Not in Rom12:3, where a measure of faith is given to already-believers (likely just another "Semitic View" anyway). Not in 1Cor12:9 where a spiritual GIFT of faith is given to one saved believer and not to another saved believer! Where is salvation not "the outcome of OUR FAITH", as Peter said in 1:1:9?

And if there is nothing of ourselves in deciding to believe --- then why does Jesus call a man WHO believes "wise", but a man WHO disbelieves "foolish", in Matt7:24-27?

Can a man be wise or foolish for what GOD does TO him??? (Rhetorical question; you know the answer is "no".)

Whaddya think? I hope I've thrown you enough curves, Scripturally-backed, to make you go: "HMMMmmmmmm..."

:-)

[Noeb]

When Adam and Eve fell, they passed on a "sinful nature";

If that's true they would have done the same if they had not sinned. God did not remake them and since they could not remake themselves they remained the same. If God did remake them then he is the reason the rest of mankind sins, and we know that's not the case either. If the sinful nature is just spiritual, that comes from God as well so the same rules apply. There is no evidence in scripture anywhere for an inherent sinful nature. Since that is not what this thread is about, I'd rather not get into it here, but that pretty much settles it. There are plenty of those in this subforum.

it is our inclination to sin, we lack the strength to resist.

What do we lack that Adam and Eve had? And why would that mean we have a sinful nature? What inclined them to sin if they were different? Why did they lack the strength to resist?

John15 is about salvation;

The disciples were already saved (Jn 15.3). They needed to carry out what Jesus commanded them (Jn 15.4, 14-16). That's the point. It was Jesus' going away message (Jn 14.2-4, 18, 20, 25-31, 15.27). To use that to establish a sinful nature or total depravity is just wrong. What does continuing in the faith have to do with how we are born? At that point we are past our pre born again condition and in Christ. Concerning Jn 15.5, whether one believes in a sin nature or not doesn't matter because they are already in Christ. You cannot use that verse to establish depravitiy. You just cannot.

All right, the THEME of the gospel, if you wish. The theme is God did through Jesus what we were too weak to do; He paid the price that we could not.

OK, but how were you relating that to, "the Spirit and Truth are always moving", concerning total depravity?

Jesus agrees with you; Lk6:33 says that "sinners do good". But we cannot be righteous before God, else Jesus would not have to have died on the Cross.

Fine, but you said we are not inherently good, and that simply is not true, as Jesus said and other scripture says. If you mean good as in good all the time, then I agree. In fact that is one of my hot buttons with the Reformed that want to use, none is good, to say we cannot do good. None is righteous, so we cannot do righteousness. It means (even in Greek) none other than God is always good and always righteous, not that we cannot be good or be righteous. Since all have sinned we are not righteous as He is so we have fallen short of His standard. It doesn't mean we cannot be righteous or be called righteous as God often does throughout scripture. How they can ignore all those that are called righteous and say we cannot do righteousness is amazing, but this is the Reformed mentality. Constant contradiction.

Understand that Reformed Theology places "born-again/regeneration/heart-change", as prior to and completely apart from belief. Thus, "regeneration" is monergistic and is imposed on a NON-BELIEVER. This is what I don't find in Scripture. All the "change-before-belief" verses (like 2Cor4:3-4, Ezk36:26-27, 1Jn5:1, 1Cor2:14) have been shown NOT to support "regeneration-before-belief".

Oh, well I was talking to you, and didn't think you were Reformed.

I agree; but our "job" here is to reveal the context, both immediate and distant, and support with Scripture theological positions.

Yes. When they read "caused" and force "arbitrarily".....when they read "I will have mercy on who I will have mercy" and force "arbitrarily"...when they read "dead in trespasses and sins" and force "born dead", it's a huge mountain to climb.

[Gadgeteer]

Hmmm... Just a quick check here, the text should hold all the meaning one needs to understand it

Not so --- as I said, Rom9:18 at face value might lead one to think "God hardens some against salvation, and has mercy on only a few (He cruelly ignores the rest, and judges MEN for the decision HE made); God is unjust, hypocritical, and a false judge". If you remember, it was a similar thing in 2Cor4:3-4; we might think satan blinds men against salvation, and God has to remove the veil from their eyes before they can see/understand/turn-to-Him. But we read in 2Cor3:16 that they turn to God and THEN He removes the veil over their eyes! So perhaps it's true that "the text holds all meaning necessary", but sometimes it's not immediate text, but adjacent and even distant, but all Scripture harmonizes.

Consider John20:15-19. This is not a "context-thing", but a language thing. Three times Jesus asked Peter if he loved Jesus, and three times Peter said "yes". But that's not what was happening.

Jesus said, "Peter, do you AGAPEO Me (unconditionally, totally love Me)?"
Peter could not; Peter said, "Lord, You know I PHILEOS You (brotherly-love Him)".
A second time Jesus said, "Peter, do you AGAPEO Me (unconditionally, totally love Me)?"
Peter still could not; all he could say was: "Lord, You know I PHILEOS You (brotherly-love Him)".
The third time, Jesus asked with a sigh: "Peter, do you phileos Me?"
And Peter said "Yes I phileos You."

Peter's grief was over the fact that he could not rise to the level of "agape love".

so going to reference materials and other sources should fine tune the understandings and really not set or alter the understandings. So I do appreciate using these, but was it really necessary to dig so deep and yet come back to say no? You wander away to defend hardening as an example of literal and non-literal and not to the text of 1 Peter 1:1,2.

Oh Well... My next tile. Let's see what you see here then.

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now you should like this one better, at least I hope you do.... For John declares an action of man in concert to the declaration of God.... He have the right to become children of God to as many who received Jesus, as God bestowed the relationship of those who believe as His children, and this wasn't because of their will to be children of God, but under God's will they where born [again] of the will of God.

What is the sequence? Does the "right to become children of God" get conferred before, or after believing/receiving Jesus?

Verse 13 says the begottenness is all of God and nothing of men; not of our will or our flesh, but all of Him. But becoming begotten, consequents from believing and receiving Jesus in verse 12.

See if you can deny that the base of "sovereign predestined-salvation" (Reformed Theology) is that God chose certain persons to be saved-adopted-sons before time, therefore the right to become children of God was given to them before creation, and THEN they (consequently, irresistibly) believe. But the conspicuous wording casts "belief" as causal to the right-to-become-children-of-God.


See if we can agree on this --- when I see "born-again", or "born-from-above", I perceive it is exactly the same thing as "begotten-of-God", and as "become-adopted-children-of-God". Do you agree?

If so --- then we receive the Spirit of adoption by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (Rm8:15) How can we be adopted, or have the right to be adopted/become-children, before we receive the Spirit of adoption? How can "receive-the-Spirit" not equate to "belief"? Remember Eph2, where Paul says "we were children of Hell even as the rest"?

How could "predestined-to-salvation" be "children-of-Hell-even-as-the-rest"?

[Gadgeteer]

If that's true they would have done the same if they had not sinned. God did not remake them and since they could not remake themselves they remained the same. If God did remake them then he is the reason the rest of mankind sins, and we know that's not the case either. If the sinful nature is just spiritual, that comes from God as well so the same rules apply. There is no evidence in scripture anywhere for an inherent sinful nature. Since that is not what this thread is about, I'd rather not get into it here, but that pretty much settles it. There are plenty of those in this subforum.

If you'd like to discuss it in one, please link me; but consider what I just quoted from Paul in the post above from Eph2:3, "We were BY NATURE children of Hell (orge-wrath, same as in Rom2:8), even as the rest".

What do we lack that Adam and Eve had?

They had never sinned; violating one of God's commands was inconceivable, until they were tempted. satan appealed to lust, and as James said in 1:14-16 "lust conceived births sin, and sin brings death".

And why would that mean we have a sinful nature? What inclined them to sin if they were different? Why did they lack the strength to resist?

All I have is Scripture; we were by nature children of Hell, even as the rest.

The disciples were already saved (Jn 15.3). They needed to carry out what Jesus commanded them (Jn 15.4, 14-16). That's the point. It was Jesus' going away message (Jn 14.2-4, 18, 20, 25-31, 15.27). To use that to establish a sinful nature or total depravity is just wrong.

No, not establishing either; but the message was salvational, Jesus' teaching about salvation to the Disciples, transfers to the rest of us.

BTW, believers and even disciples are at risk of being destroyed, Acts20:28-30!

What does continuing in the faith have to do with how we are born?

Because "born-again" is not a one time thing, it is a daily walk! Have you considered Hebrews12:7-9, teaching that we can cease to be "born-of-God/sons"?

At that point we are past our pre born again condition and in Christ. Concerning Jn 15.5, whether one believes in a sin nature or not doesn't matter because they are already in Christ. You cannot use that verse to establish depravitiy. You just cannot.

I wasn't trying to establish depravity; simply that we belong to Jesus if we do what He commands.

All right, the THEME of the gospel, if you wish. The theme is God did through Jesus what we were too weak to do; He paid the price that we could not.

OK, but how were you relating that to, "the Spirit and Truth are always moving", concerning total depravity?

"Total depravity", is not "total inability". And that is not because we have any innate ability; but rather, every last person male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free, is CALLED to salvation, and the call has the power to convict.

What we studied in Deut30:11-20, and Rom10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31, is conclusive; the "word of faith" is availed/placed-in EVERY person's heart. Each can confess and believe and be saved, or each can turn away disbelieve and perish. There is no room for argument with these verses. Anyone who disagrees, I'd love to hear the substance of that disagreement.

Fine, but you said we are not inherently good, and that simply is not true, as Jesus said and other scripture says. If you mean good as in good all the time, then I agree. In fact that is one of my hot buttons with the Reformed that want to use, none is good, to say we cannot do good.

They base this on Romans3:10-12, and ignore verses like Luke6:33 --- "sinners do good".

None is righteous, so we cannot do righteousness.

We can do righteousness; but not from our own hearts, we are corrupt --- all OUR righteousness is as filthy rags (the Greek on "filthy rags" is far stronger and more offensive!). Through JESUS we become the righteousness of God. 2Cor5:21.

It means (even in Greek) none other than God is always good and always righteous, not that we cannot be good or be righteous. Since all have sinned we are not righteous as He is so we have fallen short of His standard. It doesn't mean we cannot be righteous or be called righteous as God often does throughout scripture. How they can ignore all those that are called righteous and say we cannot do righteousness is amazing, but this is the Reformed mentality. Constant contradiction.

We cannot do righteousness; but the essence of salvation is an indwelt fellowship of love. It is as Paul said in Gal2:20, no longer we who live but Christ lives in us. The thing is that Jesus is in us BY our own faith, therefore THROUGH faith we can do righteousness, because it is Christ working righteousness THROUGH us.

That's the answer to the whole discussion --- draw near to God and God will draw near to us. (James4.) The closer we are to Him, the more His heart is our heart, and the more righteously we walk. He is not a COMPANION in the passenger seat as we drive down our roads of life; if He is a passenger, then we are in the WRONG SEAT.

Oh, well I was talking to you, and didn't think you were Reformed.

Me??? Uhm, no, I don't think, yeah I'm pretty sure, I'm not reformed. ;-)

I agree; but our "job" here is to reveal the context, both immediate and distant, and support with Scripture theological positions.

Yes. When they read "caused" and force "arbitrarily".....when they read "I will have mercy on who I will have mercy" and force "arbitrarily"...when they read "dead in trespasses and sins" and force "born dead", it's a huge mountain to climb.

Everything must be understood as it was meant. Romans9 is an allegory about "two covenants", mirroring the allegory in Galatians4:21-31. Romans9:8 is identical in concept to Galatians 3:29. In Romans9, he contrasts two covenants with "Jacob and Esau", in Galatians4 he contrasts two covenants with "Isaac and Ishmael". Two covenants -- the older covenant ("Law") will serve/subordinate to the newer covenant (Jesus' gospel of "Grace").

The point of the statement "God will have mercy on whom He will", is that the second covenant is ALSO GENTILES; and that offended the Jews. In other words, "Who are you to answer back to God? If God wants to have mercy on also Gentiles, then DEAL with it."

[Gadgeteer]

We can do righteousness; but not from our own hearts, we are corrupt --- all OUR righteousness is as filthy rags (the Greek on "filthy rags" is far stronger and more offensive!). Through JESUS we become the righteousness of God. 2Cor5:21. We cannot do righteousness; but the essence of salvation is an indwelt fellowship of love. It is as Paul said in Gal2:20, no longer we who live but Christ lives in us. The thing is that Jesus is in us BY our own faith, therefore THROUGH faith we can do righteousness, because it is Christ working righteousness THROUGH us.

"For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away." Isaiah64:6

"God made Him who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God through Him." 2Cor5:21.

"I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the One who loved Me and delivered Himself up for me." Gal2:20

I won't post what the Hebrew meaning is for "idah beged" (filthy rags), but I did link it through a Hebrew lexicon. He conveys his disgust for men's presumed own righteousness.

It is critical for us to realize we are totally corrupt and morally bankrupt. Our approach to Jesus is an attitude of awe, and terrible gratefulness; knowing that we fully deserve the fires of Hell. We may not smoke, or drink, or sleep around, or steal or get drunk or any number of other heinous behaviors; but you and I are no better than anyone else in the world, and we fully deserve Gehenna as much as the worst sinner. For "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, there is none righteous, not one".

THAT is why Jesus died on the Cross. One cannot bring a spotted lamb to a sacrifice; no disease or blemish is allowed --- the sacrificial lamb has to be PERFECT. Jesus was that perfect lamb --- sinless, spotless, unsoiled by the stains of the world.

When we come to the foot of the Cross, what have we in our hands? "Righteous works"? One or TWO "righteous works"? We bring nothing, salvation is all of Him. The entire work of our rescue was done by Him as He hung there. He has taken our certificate of debt (the wages of sin are death!), having nailed it to the Cross. And the moment before He died, He did not say "It is finished" --- no, He said:

"TETELESTAI!"

Tetelestai. The DEBT is PAID --- I paid your debt, you are free! Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed!!!


..."Jesus?"
"Yes, my child?"
..."You ...died... for me?"
"Yes, for you.
"I don't deserve that."
"I know you don't."
..."but ...why? Why did You die for me?"
"Because I LOVE you. I created you, I have wonderful plans for you; and I enjoy being with you."
"You do? Me, Lord? But --- I am so worthless!"
"Not to Me, you weren't. Oh it's not what you've done, it's just pure love. And what I can do in you and through you."
"Jesus, do You really enjoy being with me?"
"You have no idea, do you? My thoughts for you outnumber the grains of sand! I tore down the veil for you!"
"Tore down the veil? Why?"
"The veil was there because of man's SIN. Your sin. The moment I died, that veil tore. Behind, is the very presence of Almighty God. YOU are invited behind the veil, my friend! What I bought, is FELLOWSHIP with Me and with the Father (1Jn1:3). We celebrate you, our glory shines upon you. My blood washed away the stains of your sin; you are pure now, because you have MY purity in you. You will spend an eternity exploring the ecstasy and joy of rejoicing in the presence of God, because you belong to Me. Nothing and no one can hurt you permanently, for they can only hurt Me (Matt25:40); in time I will make all things right for you."

"But I can't be good for You!"
"Do you get cleaned up to take a bath? No; walk in the cleansing of the Spirit, let Me be your goodness through you. I am your strength and your song, and your salvation (Psalm 118:14), for as long as you want Me to be with you."

"Lord? Lord! That means 'Master', doesn't it!"
"Yes, it does; but My burden is easy, and My yoke is light." (Matt11:28-30)
"Jesus, I love you. Stay with me!"
"And I love you; always and forever. I will never leave and never forsake you. Heb13:5.
And ... I never lie.

"Jesus? About what You did, that horrible death --- and You say You did it for me!"
"I did! Long before you were in your mother's womb, I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5); and your name was on My lips as I died!"
"Jesus --- thank You! Thank You SO much!!!"
"You are very welcome, my child! Take My hand, and walk with Me; let the Spirit fill you; we will be your strength, and your righteousness. For I have planned wonderful things for you to walk in. And you will have meaning, great meaning; for I have planned it, that you walk in them, as you walk in Me."
"I praise You, Jesus! And worship You! I love You, forever and ever and ever!!!!"
"That is a very good thing!"

[Galatians 2:21]

I cannot find scripture that teaches we have a free will before Jesus enters our hearts. I see things like ; we were slaves to sin, & we were dead in our trespasses.
I so far have never seen a dead man choose.

Another pre-faith, pre-salavtion person, eh?

There's some places in the bible that will blow this "dead men can't choose" theology plumb out of the water.

In Genesis, God told Adam when/if he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, right? Eve ate, and her eyes were opened, and she gave to Adam, and he ate, and his eyes were opened. Then we see where God's voice came in the cool of the day, looking for Adam. Adam died spiritually, yet God spoke with him and Eve. Eve also had died spiritually. Go a little further and see where God spoke with Cain, and he was dead spiritually, too. God spoke with Abraham(Abram at this point in time) and Moses prior to them doing what was commanded of them. David was tending the sheep, when Samuel sent Jesse's sons to bring him in, and then God told Samuel to anoint him with the horn of oil. Just because one is spiritually dead, doesn't mean that are "flat-lined", but they are spiritually seperated from God due to their sins. If their soul was dead the same way a lifeless corpse is, then the whole body would be dead. You have spiritual death with the wrong definition. Spiritual death=seperation from God, and not the same as a lifeless corpse.

[Redeemed by Grace]

"Literal" is not always at issue. In Romans9:18 taking it literally we might think that God hardens men TOWARDS sin and TOWARDS condemnation. But we know from the rest of Scripture that's not true; and we can prove "Semitic View" (Exodus 10:1 "God hardened Pharaoh", two verses earlier 9:34 "Pharoah hardened himself"). And yet, there is no such reason to not take Heb12:7-9 at face value, proving that a person can forfeit being "born-again"!
If we agree that "eklektos" is the same as "saved", then we are saved by the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

who are chosen/saved ...according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

So it's not "chosen-to-obey", it's "chosen:
1. According to the foreknowledge of God
2. by the sanctifying work of the Spirit
3. to/by/through obedience

Recognize also that "chosen TO", uses "eis" --- into 573, to 281, unto 207, for 140, in 138, on 58, toward 29, against 26, misc 322 appearances in Scripture.
I don't agree that it conspicuously means "The Spirit sovereignly causes obedience".
It means what it says; we must come to understanding what the Scriptrual meaning is.

I'm heading out the door for a day of travel... but this reply has been on my mind and want to ask for clarification. would it be fair for me to assume that you are trained in biblical Greek and thus you desire to understand the text through the Greek derivation... and work to find usage elsewhere that uses the same words to derive back into that text? Or are you like me, a novice in Greek etymology?

[keyzer soze]

As a former RCC, I never dreamed I would ever be a part of a conversation where there is a debate about the GREEK translation....

[John146]

Hmmm... Just a quick check here, the text should hold all the meaning one needs to understand it, so going to reference materials and other sources should fine tune the understandings and really not set or alter the understandings.So I do appreciate using these, but was it really necessary to dig so deep and yet come back to say no? You wander away to defend hardening as an example of literal and non-literal and not to the text of 1 Peter 1:1,2.

Oh Well... My next tile. Let's see what you see here then.

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Now you should like this one better, at least I hope you do.... For John declares an action of man in concert to the declaration of God.... He have the right to become children of God to as many who received Jesus, as God bestowed the relationship of those who believe as His children, and this wasn't because of their will to be children of God, but under God's will they where born [again] of the will of God.

What I think you miss in that passage is that it says people receive/accept and believe in Christ first and then they are born of God and become children of God. But you somehow see it in the opposite order of what the text indicates.

In case you have an issue with how I interpret the meaning of what it means to receive Christ in that verse, let me point out that the Greek word translated as "received" there is lambanō and it generally means "to take" or "to accept". One of the more specific definitions of the word is "to receive a person, give him access to one's self" and I believe that is the definition that applies here. It's an action verb that requires an action by a person in order to take or accept something. So, to receive Christ is to take or accept Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. To "believe in His name". Notice that receiving Christ and believing in His name are used in the same context so that show there is an action on our part that is required in order for us to then be given the right to become children (to be born) of God. I believe John clearly indicates that the receiving/taking/accepting of Christ and believing in His name comes first before becoming born of God. So, that's something you need to reconcile with your view, IMO.

With that said, I understand why you believe verse 13 supports your view, but let me point out something about what that verse doesn't say before getting into what I believe it does say. What that verse doesn't say is that no decision and no action is required by man in order to be born of God and/or that the whole thing is God's decision and God's doing alone. Nope, it definitely doesn't say that. What it does say is that we don't regenerate ourselves of blood (by way of our race or nationality), or by the will of the flesh or of man. In other words, we can't regenerate ourselves. God does that. We are born of God, not born of ourselves. It's a spiritual birth, not physical. But what I think you are missing is that God regenerates us after we have first received/accepted and believed in His Son Jesus Christ. We have to get the order of things right in order to interpret that passage correctly.

[John146]

Fine, but you said we are not inherently good, and that simply is not true, as Jesus said and other scripture says. If you mean good as in good all the time, then I agree. In fact that is one of my hot buttons with the Reformed that want to use, none is good, to say we cannot do good. None is righteous, so we cannot do righteousness. It means (even in Greek) none other than God is always good and always righteous, not that we cannot be good or be righteous. Since all have sinned we are not righteous as He is so we have fallen short of His standard. It doesn't mean we cannot be righteous or be called righteous as God often does throughout scripture. How they can ignore all those that are called righteous and say we cannot do righteousness is amazing, but this is the Reformed mentality. Constant contradiction.

I agree. When we read that "There is none righteous, no, not one" in Romans 3:10 we shouldn't stop reading there. If you continue reading you can see the context of what that means. Paul goes on to say in verse 23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". None are righteous because everyone sins. None being righteous has nothing to do with no one being able to do anything that is right as if people can do nothing but sin at all times. No, it has to do with everyone being sinners. Being a sinner and not being righteous does not mean you are unable to repent and put your faith in Christ without God doing it for you. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance so He obviously believed that sinners were quite capable of doing the right thing without Him having to do it for them.

[glad4mercy]

What I think you miss in that passage is that it says people receive/accept and believe in Christ first and then they are born of God and become children of God. But you somehow see it in the opposite order of what the text indicates.In case you have an issue with how I interpret the meaning of what it means to receive Christ in that verse, let me point out that the Greek word translated as "received" there is lambanō and it generally means "to take" or "to accept". One of the more specific definitions of the word is "to receive a person, give him access to one's self" and I believe that is the definition that applies here. It's an action verb that requires an action by a person in order to take or accept something. So, to receive Christ is to take or accept Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior. To "believe in His name". Notice that receiving Christ and believing in His name are used in the same context so that show there is an action on our part that is required in order for us to then be given the right to become children (to be born) of God. I believe John clearly indicates that the receiving/taking/accepting of Christ and believing in His name comes first before becoming born of God. So, that's something you need to reconcile with your view, IMO.With that said, I understand why you believe verse 13 supports your view, but let me point out something about what that verse doesn't say before getting into what I believe it does say. What that verse doesn't say is that no decision and no action is required by man in order to be born of God and/or that the whole thing is God's decision and God's doing alone. Nope, it definitely doesn't say that. What it does say is that we don't regenerate ourselves of blood (by way of our race or nationality), or by the will of the flesh or of man. In other words, we can't regenerate ourselves. God does that. We are born of God, not born of ourselves. It's a spiritual birth, not physical. But what I think you are missing is that God regenerates us after we have first received/accepted and believed in His Son Jesus Christ. We have to get the order of things right in order to interpret that passage correctly.

Excellent post, brother. Salvation is a gift. Now in order for something to be a gift...

1. It must first be offered.

2. Afterward it must be received.

So God is the Soveriegn, Gracious Initiator of salvation, for He first purposed in His Heart to give us this gift, then purchased this gift for us with His own Blood, and then He graciously extended the offer to us to receive this precious gift. So God is the author and finisher of our salvation, but we must become recipients of His Grace. These statements do absolutely no harm to the Soveriegnty of God.

...and yes the New Birth, Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification are all the acts of God, who undertakes to do what we could never accomplish for ourselve. Yet faith and repentance are the works that we must accomplish, ( by the Grace and enabling of God who enables us to accomplish what we never could by ourselves.) For it is God that works in you both to will and to do of His Good Pleasure, therefore work out you salvation with fear and trembling.

It does not say work for your salvation, but it does say that we must work out what God works in, that is, to be externally obedient to the work that God performs first on then in our hearts. Before we are saved, God works on our hearts. After we get saved, God works in our hearts. Before we get saved, the command is to believe. After we get saved, the command is to abide in faith and the obedience of the faith.