Free Will and Free Grace

What sense does it make to tell those who are unable to be humble to be humble?

And what sense does it make to tell the regenerate to be humble when they are irresistably made to be humble and believe?

If God simply regenerates people, then why is preaching necessary? If preaching is necessary, then salvation cannot be said to be of God alone. If God alone regenerates a man, why do men intrude into the salvation process with preaching? What does preaching accomplish? It cannot convince the unelect, and the elect will irresistably believe regardless of whether it is persuasive or not. So why persuade men?, it is a total waste of time.

If God alone saves a person, why not simply invite folks to church and have cake and coffee, and talk about current events. God will regenerate whom he wills without your assistance, in fact, your assistance is an insult to God's sovereignty and power, is it not? No, simply have your cake and coffee and God will regenerate whom he wills.

 

I don't really see a problem. Our responsibility is not to read God's mind but to preach the gospel to everyone we have the opportunity so "that" they might be saved. Nothing prevents their salvation but their own resistance to the gospel and nothing obtains their salvation but the grace of God. God does not tell us who the elect are or who the unelect are? That is not our business. Our business is to obey Christ and preach the gospel to every creature. Why? So "that" they might be saved. "That" is our objective whether it is acheived or not.

Again, this is an argument of no consequence. If you are born "of" Adam it is because you are born "in" the Adamic line of descent. This changes nothng because Paul repeatedly says that it was "by one man's offence many were made sinners" not by our own offence we were made sinners.

God says that the very day Adam sinned he would die. He didn't die physically that day. He became dead spiritually that day. Those in Epheisans 2;1-3 had not died physically or were dead physically in verses 2-3! They were very much physically alive but they were "dead" spiritually in that they were "children OF DISOBEDIENCE" and spiritually SEPARATED from God. Is not that what is described in Ephesians 4:18 - separation from eternal life through spiritual blindness and ignorance?? Hence, it is the bible that describes this spiritual separation in terms of "blindness" and "hardness" of the heart not merely Calvinism. Spiritual blindness and inability to perceive is inclusive in the unregenrate state of the heart (Deut. 24:9) that is reversed when God gives a "new" heart (Ezek. 36:26-27).

Election is not through faith but election is TO salvation (2 Thess. 2:13; Acts 13:48). 2 thes. 2:13 says we are "chosen TO salvation" and it is salvation that comes "through" sanctification - setting apart by the Spirit of God and "through" belief of the truth." We do not believe in order to be ordained to eternal life but "as many as were ordained to eternal life beleived" (Acts 13:48). Christ is the "author" of our faith (Heb. 12:2) and faith is a "gift" of God (Eph. 2:8) and is of grace (Rom. 4:16) and not all men have faith (2 Thes. 3:2). The unregnerated heart has no ability to perceive, see or hear, which are all necessary for faith to exist (Deut. 29:4). God must give a new heart. He did not give them such a heart in Deut. 24:9 but he will in Ezek. 36:26-27 and it is with this new heart "man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. 10:10) as the new heart IS a believing heart not that it BECOMES a believing heart.

 

What sense does it make to tell Christians to be obedient when in fact they have no ability to obey God (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 7:15-20). If they do, then why is it necessary for God to work in Christians both to "WILL and to DO" of his good pleasure (Phlip. 2:13). We are told to obey because that is our responsibility even though we possess no ability to do so. That ability comes from denying you have such ability and casting yourself upon the Spirit of God for enablement. A Christian can do that because the HOly Spirit already indwells them and leads them to do that.

Because God commanded it! Because God elected the means of salvation as much as He did the persons of salvation.

Preaching saves no one! It is only when God empowers the preaching that anyone is saved (1 thes. 1:5). Only God alone can empower the gospel. Only God alone can make it his CREATIVE word to call light out of darkness (2 Cor. 4:6). The one preaching the gospel can claim nothing:

2 Cor. 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 ¶ Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Can you EMPOWER the gospel? Can you call light out of darkness? Can you Create some one in Christ Jesus? Those things are what saves a person and you cannot do any of them. If you argue that includes you then you must rebuke Paul for saying "Not that we are sufficient of OURSELVES to think ANY THING AS OF OURSELVES; but our sufficiency is OF GOD"

It always accomplishes either salvation or evidence for damnation (2 Cor. 2:16-18). It is accomplishes whatever God uses it for.

The mind can be pursuaded and that is our aim. However, the heart is beyond our reach and we cannot change its love for darkness and its hate for light (Jn. 3:19). We aim for the mind and depend on God to aim for the heart.

If that were God's chosen means to save then that is precisely what you should do. However, you know it is not God's chosen means don't you?

God is never insulted when we obey him. He is insulted when we play the role of the Holy Spirit and attempt to save a person by our pursasion, sales tactics, pressure instead of depending on the Holy Spirit to save.

 

Hi Dr. Walter, thanks for attempting to discuss the topic.

1. You say faith comes from regeneration, and not from hearing. The Bible says otherwise.

2. Calvinists consistently misquote and misrepresent scripture, and that is of consequence. Nowhere I found does it say we are "of Adam" so why introduce a man-made concept into your theology? Christ was born in the Adamic line of descent but He was not "of Adam."

3. Being spiritually dead simply refers to being separated from God. The metaphor is of the dead being separated from the living. Being spiritually dead does not say the person has been corrupted such that they cannot seek God or put their faith in Christ. Thus being spiritually dead does not mean being dead to the Lord.

4. Election is through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. God chose the Thessalonians, from the beginning or as first fruits, for salvation. They were not chosen "to" salvation. And how were they chosen? Through (1) sanctification by the Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit spiritually baptizes the person into Christ's body, and (2) through faith in the truth. Note 1 Peter 1-2 also says were are chosen by the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Hence "through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth" apply to being chosen describing the method and basis of the election.

Ephesians 2:1-4 says every born again believer once, before they were born again, were dead in their sins and trespasses. They walked according to the course of this world. Each and every one of us, prior to being saved was a child of wrath. Therefore we had, at that time, not been chosen individually because then Paul would in Ephesians 2:1-4 be bringing a charge against the elect, which conflicts with Romans 8:33.

In Ephesians 4:18-19 we see that the Gentiles had a heart that was hardened, but reading further, verse 19 we see that they had hardened their heart. Thus, there condition was not the result of the fall, they started with some spiritual ability, but then lost what they had by the practice of sin. Therefore this passage demonstrates the Calvinist doctrine of total spiritual inability is unbiblical. We are corrupt at birth, yes, but still able to respond to God. As we live, we are corrupted further, and some of us, the first soil of Matthew 13 become so hardened we cannot understand the gospel. But the rest of us can and therefore the concept of being dead to the Lord is an unbiblical fiction.

In Deuteronomy 24:9 I found no support for anything, it simply says remember what God did to Miriam. In Numbers 12 I see where the Lord causes Miriam to have leprosy for 7 days because she spoke against Moses. Now in Zechariah 7:12 I do see that folks made their hearts like flint, thus an inability to hear arises in some folks by the practice of sin.

In Ezek. 36:26-27 we see the promise of the New Covenant in Christ's blood. Yes, scripture says when we are converted, born again, arise a new creation, God will remove our "heart of stone" and replace it with a heart of flesh. Here the metaphor refers to our corrupted spirit that is "hard hearted" stubborn, stiff necked, etc. But what Calvinists do is assume this initially "hardened, corrupted heart is so hardened it cannot hear God. But scripture, in passage after passage says we can unless we have by the practice of sin hardened it further to the point of loss of all spiritual ability we can hear and respond, i.e three of the four soils of Matthew 13.

In Romans 10:10 simply restates that we must believe from the heart, i.e total commitment and not lip service profession, for God to credit our faith as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5. Next, in Romans 11, we see God hardening the hearts of the Jews who did not heed, they heard but did not heed, the message, so they would drive Paul and others out, effecting the spread of the gospel to the gentiles. All this flies completely in the face of the Calvinist fiction.

Last verse, Acts 13:48 where Calvinists again misrepresent the verse. "as many has had been (past tense) appointed (tassio) believed." We agree they were appointed before they believed. But then we part company. How were the Gentiles appointed? Calvinists claim God appointed them before creation when, Ephesians 1:4, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. However, Acts uses the word "tassio" which is used to refer to an agreement between two entities by mutual consent. What Calvinists do is redefine the word as used and turn it into a unilateral appointment, God's election before creation. Just does not fit.

What does Acts 13:48 really say? That the Gentiles did not receive Paul's message in the same way the Jews did. In verse 46 the Jews rejected the gospel. In contrast, the Gentiles agreed to accept the conditions specified by Paul in the Gospel of Christ. Thus they accepted the appointment to eternal life and condition number one is to believe!
The Gospel of Christ

 

If you will check the Greek term translated "word" in Romans 10:17 you will find it is not the ordinary Greek term "logos" but "rhema" or word of command. Regeneration is by God's word of command as described by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:6 where it is compared to Genesis 1:3 where by word of command God called light out of darkness. Note also that God says in Deut. 29:4 that the unregenerated heart cannot perceive, see or hear and that God did not "give" such a heart that could perceive, see and hear. Look also at 1 Thes. 1:4-5 that demonstrates the power of salvation does not come with the gospel when it comes in word "only" but only when it come by elective power of the command of God. This is the effectual call when God empowers the gospel so that it comes in power, in the holy Spirit and in much assurance as in 1 Cor. 1:26-28.

Paul explicity states that by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS. He did not say by your own offence you were made a sinner! However, that is precisely what you are tring to teach. The term "Adam" is synonomous with the term "man" or mankind in the Hebrew Old Testament - see Gen. 1:26-27 and not "man" singular but plural "them" and "man" defined as "male and female."

Being spiritual dead is equal to being unregenerate, correct? Ephesians 4:18 defines the unregenate state or separation from the life of God a condition of the heart. God describes this condition of the heart in terms INABILITY to "perceive" "see" or "hear" (Deut. 29:4; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14).

You are directly contradicting the Greek as well as the English explicit statement of Paul "chosen TO salvation." Salvation is the object of termination for election. The instrumental means are equally chosen and that is "through" being set apart by the Holy Spirit first followed by belief of the truth. Acts 13:48 explicitly condemns your interpretation as well.

Ephesians 1:4 explicitly tells you we were chosen "before the foundation of the world" and so your whole logic is irrational. Romans 8:33 does not contradict Ephesian 1:4 and the time of election. Instead, it is election that guarantees that Romans 8:33 is fulfilled through Christ's death (which also occurred previous to your birth).

You are using HUMAN LOGIC in explicit contradiction to Biblical teaching that says "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS"! Your interpretation directly contradicts Paul's explicit words. Instead, you are trying to teach that "BY EACH MAN'S OWN OFFENCE THEY WERE MADE SINNERS.' Paul is saying every man was "made" INITIALLY a sinner by the fall not by their own acts of sin which only confirmed what they were already by nature.

Doctrine cannot be built upon parables, allegories, spiritualizations but such things can only be used to support clear and explicit precepts. You have none!

. I must have reversed the numbers. I meant Deuteronomy 29:4. Try that.

Read Deuteronomy 29:4 and you will see why God must "give" a "new" heart and why the old heart is incapable of faith.




Last verse, Acts 13:48 where Calvinists again misrepresent the verse. "as many has had been (past tense) appointed (tassio) believed." We agree they were appointed before they believed. [/QUOTE]

The text says no such thing. It says "as many as were ordained unto eternal life believed." This term "tassio" is NEVER used in the New Testament for a mutual agreement between God and man. When God is involved it is ALWAYS a reference to the "everlasting covenant" between the parties of the Trinune God as spelled out in Ephesian 1:4-13. Beleif was the consequence not the cause of being "ordained unto eternal life."

Your application of "tassio" is incorrect. The only parties making such a covenant before the wold began are the THREE listed in Eph. 1:4-13 - The Trinity - You did not exist at that point of time. Second, this choosing was not BECAUSE of anything forseen in you but "THAT you should be holy and without blame in his sight."

That is the point! Paul gives the ultimate cause why some did. What they did was a consequential response to the gospel but what determined the consequential response was what God did before the world began.

 

Your interpretation of Rom 5:19 is error. This verse is NOT saying Adam's sin is imputed to all men, otherwise the verse would also be saying that the righteousness of Christ is also unconditionally imputed to all men.

Read Barnes Notes on Romans chapter 5, he discusses this in detail. He did not agree with this interpretation, and he was a Calvinist.

 

Verse 19 does not use the word "all" but "many." Neither you or Barnes deal with why Paul changes from "many" in verses 15-16 to "all" in verse 18 and then back to "many" in verse 19. It is not accidental.

Verses 15-16 deal with what is "NOT" exactly parallel between Christ and Adam and the unequal number of mankind connected with each of their consequences. Thus the limited term "many" because all mankind is split between Adam and Christ in regard to what Adam's offence versus what Christ obedience actually affected.

Hence, not only are there vital contrasts betweet Christ and Adam in regard to their actions and consequences but also in regard to whom these consequences are ultimately applied. Hence, the use of "many" rather than "all" as "all" do not equally share the effects of both.

Verse 17 is the transition verse that makes it clear that the justification provided by Christ is restricted to that portion of mankind that "receive" it.

Since verses 15-17 have separated the application of unequal consquences to two different unequal size groups, the word "many" is used to indicate the unequal size related to each representative.

Now verse 18 treats "all" in each group in connection to Adam versus Christ. Hence, the previous "many" that received the consequences of Adam are "all" in connection with him, whereas, the previous "many" that receive the conseqences of Christ's obedience are "all" in connection with him. Hence, "all in Adam die" but "all in Christ" are made alive. Therefore, not "all in Christ" are "all in Adam" but "all in Christ" were PART of "all in Adam" formerly.

However, verse 19 is designed to summarize the unequal consequences not the similarities as they relate to each group that is UNEQUAL in size, and therefore Paul returns to the term "many" instead of "all" as in verse 18.

In verse 19 he brings the reader back to the initial declaration in verse 12 concerning the "many" (number not the same in size with those represented by Christ) who "sinned" by representation through ONE MAN'S OFFENSE. Verse 12 does not say "For all SHALL sin" but "all HAVE sinned" and that occured "BY ONE MAN's OFFENCE" as by one man's offence "MANY WERE MADE SINNERS."

 

Hi Dr. Walter, lets go over your assertions.

1) Romans 10:17 refers to the word of God. Rhema refers to the message of the utterance, in this case the gospel of Christ. Your effort to rewrite scripture to say it really say faith comes by God creating our faith by speaking it into us is utter fiction. Calvinism relies upon inventing new definitions of words to alter scripture.

2) Referring now to Deuteronomy 29:4, God did not speak faith into those following Moses, He did not compel them as the Calvinist invention of regeneration before faith requires. So this verse actually argues against your premise! It does not say, as you mistakenly believe, that they could not perceive, see verse 29:9 for example. Calvinism systematically misrepresents scripture such as Deut 29:4.

3. 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 says the gospel came in power and Calvinists again misrepresent this as meaning supernatural regeneration. However, all this means is Paul came in person, and Paul was filled with the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus the gospel came not only in word, i.e. as in a letter from Paul, but Paul came himself, so they knew what kind of man he was, full of the power of the Holy Spirit. See Acts 17:1-4 for example.

Your reference to the "effectual call" again is a reference to Calvinism fiction, found no where in the bible. 1 Cor. 1:26-30 refers to God electing existent people who were not rich, well born or powerful in the eyes of the world. He chose the ones who humbly put their complete trust in Christ.

4) It is disappointing to see you, purported to be a Dr, misrepresenting my view. I did not deny by the tresspass of the one, Adam, the many, eveyone but Christ, were made sinners. What I deny is we were made sinners by coming from the blood line of Adam, for Christ came from that bloodline. We were not made sinners because we come from Adam's bloodline, we were made sinners as a spiritual consequence of Adam's sin creating a separation from God.

5) Being spiritually dead is equal to being unregenerate. Yes! To be regenerated is to be made alive. We are made alive when God puts us spiritually in Christ, hence made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5. In Ephesians 4:18-19 we see that the Gentiles had a heart that was hardened, but reading further, verse 19 we see that they had hardened their heart. Thus, their condition was not the result of the fall, they started with some spiritual ability, but then lost what they had by the practice of sin. Therefore this passage demonstrates the Calvinist doctrine of total spiritual inability is unbiblical. We are corrupt at birth, yes, but still able to respond to God. As we live, we are corrupted further, and some of us, the first soil of Matthew 13 become so hardened we cannot understand the gospel. But the rest of us can and therefore the concept of being dead to the Lord is an unbiblical fiction.

6) God does not describe the condition of being spiritually dead, unregenerate as having the Inability to perceive, see and hear as addressed above for Deut. 29:4. Romans 8:7 says the mind set on the flesh. Who sets the mind on the flesh? We do. We can also set our mind on spiritual things. See Romans 7. Paul wanted to do what was godly but kept doing what was fleshly. When he was reaching out to God, his mind was not set on the flesh. Finally if you read 1 Corinthians 2:14 through 3:3 you will see men of flesh, natural men can understand some spiritual things, the milk but not the meat. Therefore the whole concept of total spiritual inability is disproved by the very passage you cite.

7) You are directly contradicting the Greek. Eis means into and can mean metaphorically instrumentality, chosen for the purpose of salvation. Look up the reason why eis is often translated "for."

8) My interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is fully supported by Acts 13:48 as I demonstrated in an earlier post.

9) There is no question that I was chosen before the foundation of the world. I did not say I was not chosen. I said I was not chosen Individually before the foundation of the world, but I was chosen corporately, for when God chose His redeemer, He corporately chose all those His Redeemer would redeem, hence, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

10) Of course Romans 8:33 invalidates being elect before we live as children of wrath. You view presents a logical impossiblity. Saying taint so is denial not rebuttal.

11) You are equating being made sinners from conception with being so corrupted we have total spiritual inability. My view is that we have limited spiritual ability, we can understand the milk of the gospel per 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:3 but not the meat. You are the one using man-made doctrine which is contradicted by scripture on almost every point.

12) Such a shame to hear a Dr. profess that what is presented in parable form and explicitly explained cannot be used for doctrine. Utter nonsense. Matthew 13:18-23 is not a parable. It is the very word of God from Jesus Christ Himself.

13) I addressed Deut. 29:4 and it does not say what you claim. See point 6 above.

14) My point exactly, tassio refers to an agreement between Paul and the Gentiles, they agreed to take His direction, i.e. trust in the gospel, and therefore they were appointed to eternal life, and the first step in taking that direction is believing in Jesus.
Your argument is sound, since the word is tassio, it cannot refer to an agreement between God and man. BTW, tassio is used to describe an agreement between Jesus and men so since Jesus is God, you might be a tad off base, but it works for me.

15) Ordained refers to a unilateral action by God, and that does not fit the usage of tassio in every place it is used. It alway refers to an agreement. Therefore "ordained" is a mistranslation. Calvinism often relies on mistranslations to read their man-made doctrine into the text.

16) As I pointed out, the appointment was not made by God but my Paul presenting the gospel and the Gentiles agreed with the conditions specified and therefore were appointed to eternal life.

 

False. As Barnes correctly states, vs. 19 is an explanation of vs. 18.

Rom 5:18 Therefore (showing this is a summary of vss. 12-17) as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men even so (likewise) by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

If the first "all men" means 100% of mankind, then the second "all men" means 100% of men as well. You can't change the definition of exact words in the same verse and context, but that is how you attempt to explain these verses (12-17). If Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to all men, then vs. 18 MUST be interpreted to say that justification unto life is also imputed unconditionally to all men, which we know is not true. To interpret otherwise is inconsistent.

Thus, if the first "many" in vs. 19 means all men, then the second "many" must mean all men as well.

You must be inconsistent to make these verses agree with your doctrine.

Paul was never saying Adam's sin was unconditionally imputed to us, he was saying Adam's judgment is conditionally imputed to us when we sin in the same manner as Adam. Likewise, righteousness and justification are imputed conditionally when one believes on Christ.

 

What good is it to discuss if you are not even going to objectively deal with the evidence? No one can convince a person who has already made up their mind in spite of contrary evidence!

I did not list Rom. 10:17 alone. The term "rhema" can ligitmately refer to a "command." 2 Cor. 4:6 describes the INWARD change from darkness to light directly with Genesis 1:3 where God by word of command called light into existence. The term "called" in 1 Cor. 1:26-29 is clearly a distinguishing call and effectual. 2 Thes. 2:14 defines this call by the gospel. 1 Thes. 1:4-5 makes it clear the gospel does not come in "WORD ONLY" to the elect but "IN POWER" and "IN THE HOLY SPIRIT." The combination of this evidence is devasting to your theories.

You have got to be kidding? When God gave them the Ten commandments here is what he immediately said:

Deut. 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

Meaning there was no such heart in them and therefore they would not fear him or keep his commandments and the entire rest of the book demonstrates there was no such heart in them. Not only did they have no such heart, but God had not given them such a heart at the end of Deuternomy, so they still were UNABLE with the heart they did have to perceive, see or hear:

Deut. 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

In the plainest language possible God says they don't have a heart capable of fearing and keeping his commandments and continued without such a heart that can perceive, see or hear "unto this day." That means the heart they have has been and still is INCAPABLE of perceiving, seeing and hearing - all of which are necessary for faith to come into existence.

Last compare it with what God does give according to the NEW covenant:

Ezek. 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

The old heart is taken away becuase according to God's word in Deut. 5:29 and 29:4 HAS NO ABILITY to perceive, see or hear. Note that the giving of the NEW heart ENABLES them to obey - "CAUSE YOU".

Your interpretation of Deut. 29:3 is flatly contradictive to what it says, especially in connection with Deut 5:29 and Ezek. 36:26-27. The only way you can escape this obvius condemnation of your theory is to be irrational, non-objective and stubborn instead of objective and honest with the evidence.

You attempted to use Deut.29:9 in order to make verse 4 say the very opposite of what it actually says but when that text is compared to both Deut. 29:4 and Deut. 5:29 it only tells them what they are accountable for not what they able to do:

Deut. 29:9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

Deut. 5:29 O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!

1 Thessalonians says no such thing. The designated subject is "gospel" not Paul. The three prepositional phrases modify the "gospel" not Paul. The negative qualification "not in word only" describe the "gospel" not Paul. Grammatically your theory is a flat contradition to this verse. The fact that the gospel OFTEN comes in "word only" even by Spirit filled preachers like Paul so that the consequence is damnation not salvation is clearly stated by Paul in 2 Cor. 2:14-17. It is common knowledge that the gospel often comes in "word only" to some in the congregation while not to others in the congregation when it is the SAME PREACHER.

Election occurs before the world began not during the life time of existing people (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13). The nature of their call was not all-inclusive but restrictive by God's choice:

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen

You either have to attribute to REPRODUCTION AFTER KIND which has Adam as its source AFTER his fall or you have to attribute it to indivdual actions and Romans 5:12-19 denies it is derived from PERSONAL ACTIONS but rather BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE many were made sinners BY NATURE.

Infants "FROM THE WOMB" have the fallen nature and when the exit the womb it is manfested by what they do. Christ did not have that fallen nature IN THE WOMB. Hence, the sin nature does not originate by what individuals do or not do but it comes as part of their NATURE from the womb which is a FALLEN NATURE which they inherit from Adam THROUGH BIRTH IN THE WOMB.

Medical science tell us that in conception FROM THE WOMB that both the human father and mother individually contribute to the make up of every human being. Jesus did not have that contribution from a human father FOR A PURPOSE.

Eph. 2:10 - We are "created in Christ Jesus" and the one being regenerated cannot assist God in creating anything.

You do not understand hardening. The same sun that melts the butter harden's the clay. The distinction is the nature of the substance receiving the light. The heart of the lost man is like clay and only like clay or so says Jesus:

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

This is Christ's description of the unregerated heart's response to light - HATETH the light, NEITHER COMETH to the light.

They have this heart condition "FROM THE WOMB" and "AS SOON AS THEY BE BORN" their wickness is manifested "FROM THE WOMB."

The unregenerated heart ALWAYS responds to the light by hardening NEVER by softening and that is why God must give a NEW HEART and that is why regeneration is taught by Christ FIRST to Nicodemus (Jn. 3:1-13) BEFORE the gospel (Jn. 3:15-17). The unregnerated heart has SPIRITUAL ABILITY but "FROM THE WOMB" is wicked and response to light with HATRED and refusal to come to the light - IT IS CLAY.

Read Deut. 5:29 with "unto this day" in Deut. 29:4 as it directly contradicts your conclusion.

First, you do not understand that the "mind set" of the flesh is synonmous with "understanding" in Ephesians 4:18 and part of the unregenerated "heart."

Second, you flatly contradict Paul. He says "neither indeed can be" and you say "we do" meaning we can! Indwelling sin in the believer can be put to death by the power of the Spirit but it cannot be changed. It can never be saved. It is destroyed in physical death. it is eradicated not saved.

 

Chapter two deals with an entirely different subject than chapter three. Chapter two demonstrates that the power of the gospel is not found in the preacher's abilities but solely in the Spirit of God because the problem of sin is beyond the ability of the preacher. Chapter three deals with the spiritual immaturity of the Corinthians over their dispute over one preacher better than the other.

Verse 14 defines the very reason why the fallen condition is beyond the scope of a preacher's ability and must be dealt with by the Spirit of God.

Finally, whatever spin you place on that text it still teaches INABILITY in the strongest langauge possible:

1 Cor. 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

The natural man is as man comes "FROM THE WOMB" as that is the "natural" origin of the "natural" man. This condition is why eloquence (vv. 1-4) or any other ability of the human instrument of the gospel is incapable of making the difference.

Do you even have any training in Greek?? I am no Greek "scholar" but I have had extensive training both in college (3 years of Greek) and in Seminary (2 years of Greek) and I know enough to know what you are saying has no grammatical basis. The preposition eis with an accusative case noun denotes termination of action in the noun. Dr. A.T. Robertson said,

Unto salvation (εις σωτηριαν). The ultimate goal, final salvation.

You obviously have none or very little knowledge of Greek grammar. You interpretation has absolutely no grammatical basis whatsoever.

There is no such thing as corporate "salvation" simply because it cannot be applied corporately but ONLY individually. They were chosen from the beginning to corporate salvation but to indivdiual salvation which was inclusive of individual repentance and faith.

You forget, that the preceding context is looking at salvation from God's eternal "purpose" which is not YET accomplished as NONE are YET glorified (v. 29) so your interpretation is absurdly rediculous because in that stated "purpose" we were "justified" as well as "glorified."

We are "dead" not HALF-dead spiritually (Eph. 2:1) and it is that "dead" condition that is described in Ephesians 2:2-3 of our past life from birth. It is this same "dead" condition described in Ephesians 4:18 that describes our "understanding" and "heart" not HALF-blind or in HALF-darkness but in total darkness and total blindness and that is what "alienates them from the life of God".

I see you have never been trained in Biblical hermeneutics and have no clue what is proper or improper interpretation principles. I suggest you buy, borrow or go on line and learn the a,b,c's of biblical hermeneutics. I assure you that any scholar you do look up to will reaffirm what I have said - YOU NEVER BUILD DOCTRINE on parables, allegories or spritualizations but use them ONLY to support clear and explicit precepts or examples confirmed by precepts. Go learn what this means and then come back and talk to me.


14) My point exactly, tassio refers to an agreement between Paul and the Gentiles, they agreed to take His direction, i.e. trust in the gospel, [/QUOTE]

The gentiles are the PASSIVE OBJECTS receiving the action of Tassio not the ACTIVE SUBJECTS doing the action in Acts 13:48. Sorry, but you need to learn grammar.

 

That is simply not true because verse 17 previously qualifies that justification of life is restricted to only those who "receive" it! Both you and Barnes ignore that little word and fact that qualifies the terms "all" in verse 18 to be respective of "all" in connection with each person rather than "all" mankind irregardless of connection with one or the other.


17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

 

Hi Dr. Walter, I see you are now attacking me personally, saying I am not objectively dealing with the evidence. Fiddlesticks, I have addressed patiently nearly every verse you have cited and shown those verses actually support my position.

Yes, you did not list Romans 10:17, for I addressed some of the other verses you listed as well. Yes, rhema can refer to a message containing commands or not. To assert rhema suggests a reference to God decreeing faith is nonsense.

No, I am not kidding when I say your verses that supposedly support total spiritual inability, actually support limited spiritual ability. Sure we do not have a heart, prior to receiving a new heart, that always fears God. That does not say we cannot occasionally fear God. Ditto for following His commands and guidance. Proving we cannot do something all of the time does not suggest in the slightest we do not try to do them some of the time.

You do realize the heart in Duet 29:4 refers to the new heart we are given under the new covenant. Thus you are saying none of the OT saints could gain approval through faith, Fiddlesticks. See Hebrew 11

Your interpretation of Deut. 29:3 is flatly contradictory to what it says, especially in connection with Deut 5:29 and Ezek. 36:26-27. The only way you can escape this obvious condemnation of your theory is to be irrational, non-objective and stubborn instead of objective and honest with the evidence.

Talk about twaddle, my view is actually consistent with all scripture and as I have shown yours is not consistent with any scripture. So save your disparagement, it simply shows you to be using logical fallacies, rather than objective evidence.

To repeat, Deut 29:4 says God did not degree faith into the people, for love does not demand its own way.

Paul came in person, thus not by word only. This is yet another example where Calvinism misrepresents what scripture actually says. In 1 Cor. 2:4, Paul makes a very similar statement. Yes the gospel is the power of God for salvation. But the effectual call is not where to be found, except in the inventive minds of Calvinists. 2 Cor. 2:14-17 simply says the gospel can be heard but not heeded, or heard and headed. So yet again a verse that supports my position.

Lets go back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-30. You are saying this verse says they were called but not chosen during their lifetime. But the verse does not say God "called what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. No it says God chose the foolish in the world to shame the wise. Ditto for weak, ditto for low and despised. A classic example of where Calvinists simply misrepresent scripture to avoid admitting their man-made doctrine is unbiblical.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 does indeed says some were chosen from the beginning. But what beginning. If creation were in view, then we were chosen after creation, not before. So yet another misrepresentation of scripture to try and fit what does not fit into the text. Fiddlesticks.

Do not tell me I have to attribute the consequence of the fall to something other than God's action, for by the trespass of Adam, the many were made sinners. Christ is of the bloodline of Adam yet was not made a sinner. QED

Yes Jesus did not have a human father for a purpose, but scripture tells us the purpose and it was not to avoid being made a sinner!!! His virgin birth fulfilled more than one prophecy!!!

BTW, I see you added "are called" to the text of 1 Cor. 1:26 at the end. However, those words are not in the Greek. So yet another example among an avalanche of examples of Calvinists misquoting and misrepresenting the very word of God.

Yes, we are created in Christ, regenerated in Christ, made alive in Christ. and we do not contribute to being born again, not by our action, but from above by the power of God alone. This is an effort to sidestep Ephesians 2:5 which says we are made alive, i.e. regenerated, when we are placed "in Christ" and not before. So yet another example where Calvinism's sequence does not mesh with scripture.

Back to Ephesians 4:18-19, the Gentiles hardened their hearts, and their fallen heart is no different from your fallen heart before being born again and becoming a new creation.
John 3:19-20 says people whose deeds were evil ran from the light to avoid reproach. Then in verse 21 other people whose deeds also have been evil, but who also does what is true come to the light. Therefore fallen people have the capacity to come to the light and believe and be saved.

I am done with your repeated misrepresentation of Deut 29:4. It simply says God did not create the new heart in under the Old Covenant! That is it. But many of them still put sufficient faith in God to gain approval, see Hebrews 11. And I also addressed Deut 5:29, the people did not have a heart that "always feared God." Well duh!! They had an unregenerate heart that sometimes sought God and followed His and sought His as a refuge, but they could not sustain it. This verse supports limited spiritual ability and refutes total spiritual inability.

I understand what it means to set our mind on the flesh, and what it means to set our mind on spiritual things, just as Paul did in Romans 7.

And lastly I do not contradict Paul when He says it is impossible to understand spiritual things. The key is to understand 1 Cor. 2:14 to be speaking of the spiritual things discerned with the aid of our indwelt Spirit. A natural, unregenerate, man of flesh cannot understand those spiritual things because he or she does not have the Spirit. But this does not include the milk of the gospel, see 1 Cor. 2:14-3:3.

 

You have simply verified what I charged you with. You give nothing but personal opinions in response of specific Biblical evidence to the contrary.

 

I see I missed some rebuttal items contained in Dr. Walter's second post.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 is translated "for salvation" rather than to salvation, in many bibles.
Therefore the premise I am violating the Greek is nonsense. Strike one for the guy claiming to have studied Greek for 5 years.

Next, Dr. Walter claims the mysterious Greek grammar precludes my view of Acts 13:48. Utter rubbish. My view is totally consistent with the word meaning and grammar of Acts 13:48. Calvinists love to claim their bogus views are supported by grammar, but with the advent of the internet, it is easy to find very qualified experts to refute all these bogus claims.

Strike two, the good doctor cannot read. I said corporate election, and he rebuts corporate salvation. Utter nonsense. Calvinists always misrepresent their opponents to create strawman arguments to knock down. Fiddlesticks.

No amount of time shifting will fix your problem with Romans 8:33. No charge can be brought against God's elect, means once you are elected you are forgiven and therefore all charges are meaningless. However, Paul's point rests on the fact that we were guilty as charged, we were children of wrath, and to try and make this charge go away is to nullify scripture. And that folks is what Calvinism requires, wholesale scripture nullification, misrepresentation, and denial.

And now we have yet another attempt to equate being spiritually dead, i.e. separated from God, with total spiritual inability. This is a definition argument, the Calvinists define being spiritually dead as being unable to respond to God or seek God. However, Matthew 13, does that ring a bell, clearly teaches 3 or the 4 soils can respond to God. QED

And then, at the close, Dr. Walter reveals the caliber of his mind, he claims to know I have not been trained in hermeneutics. But I have been trained. So Strike three, Dr. Walter is no mind reader. Go figure.

 

As I said zillion times, those oppossed to the DoG seem to be unable to fully understand the Biblicalextent of the fall of Adam being to ALL of us afterwards!

 

You calling out some on the ability to understand is quite funny. You can say it a zillion and one times, but your understanding is not the "biblical understanding", it is your understanding on biblical truths (which don't include a person being held accountable for the sin of another)

 

You do realise that God sees only TWO classes of persons, right?

One group as Adam as their feudal head, that they are all found by God to be in him, and reckoned to have received his punishment/judgement

Another group found by God to be , In Christ, as their head, and have received eternal grace and life!

 

I see two groups...but not what you stated. There is believer and unbeliever. That is it. Like I said, the biblical model NEVER holds one accountable for the sin of another.

 

Adam represented all of humanity before God, was the physical head of the human race. When he fell, we ALL fell with him, and became judged guilty as being sinners before a Holy God.

Jesus is the second Adam, and he stands as the head of the spiritual human race, all of those found saved by grace of God, "in Him"....