Featured We don't WANT "Free-Will"

Isa. 41:12 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee

He didn't create anything corrupted. He created all things good. However, the good things He created were corrupted, because they were not created incorruptible.

.

Of course. There is natural love, natural faith and natural hope. All of things are earthly.

To say there is no natural love that is not divine is . . . well . . . just stupid.

Funny you should say this about me, since you ascribe divinity and worth to things that spring from a natural man.

I would venture to say, you know little of God to hold man in so high regard.

 

What you noticed was my ignoring your tedious drivel.

s'long. :wavey:

 

Well, I assure you I was not being sarcastic, too tired for that tonight.

I believe Jesus was directly answering their criticism that he kept company with sinners and ate with them. Jesus was showing himself like a physician that by necessity must have contact with those who are diseased in order to heal them. It is a straightforward answer.

I don't think you can compare this incident with Luke 15. In Luke 15 Jesus tells 3 very detailed parables which are really one parable. In all three parables, whether the lost sheep, the lost coin, or the prodigal son, none were originally lost, but became lost. The Lord sought for these lost sinners and recovered them.

Now, this was an answer to the Pharisees who criticized Jesus for keeping company with sinners. He showed that God does not despise these sinners as the Pharisees did, but seems to argue they all originally belonged to God and were of great value to him, but seeks for them, and when they are recovered there is great rejoicing. I am sure this was very surprising to the Pharisees, who most likely believed that God hated and despised these sinners.

Nevertheless, there is also the theme that none of these sinners were originally lost, and there is the mention of the 99 just persons who need no repentance, and the eldest son who never transgressed his father's commands at any time. I do not believe Jesus mentioned these persons by accident, and that we are to study to determine who these persons are.

It was this chapter of scripture that caused me to seriously question Original Sin, because NONE of the stories here match up with Original Sin whatsoever. In OS, there are no just persons who need no repentance, everyone is born lost, no one is made alive again, and no person can be said to have never transgressed God's commandments at any time. Yet, this is what Jesus himself said, so it must be true. This may never have occurred to you, but this jumped off the page to me and immediately drew my attention.

There are MANY other scriptures that do not agree with OS, but I will not bore you with that now. Too tired anyway.

I think lots of folks simply believe what they are taught. When they read a chapter like Luke 15, they simply do not notice these details. Their mind has been conditioned, it is almost like a blindness. Perhaps a few notice these details refute what they have been taught, but many are afraid to think outside the "orthodox" box. I was never one of these types, I used to torture my teachers, and was known for asking "tough" questions. Just the way I was brought up, I was taught by my parents to think for myself, and never let anyone think for me. It's a family trait.

 

...and off he goes with his tail between his legs. Anyone with half a brain can see you have been thoroughly schooled and now pretend to parade off with chest puffed out.

 

Yes, this is the glaring error of those who consider faith a work. If faith is a work before regeneration, it is still a work after regeneration, and anyone who holds to this view MUST believe a person is saved by works.

Good luck getting one of them to admit it though.

 

If everything is determined, then we are doing God's will at all times, and everything we do is good.

 

Commenting to Skan, Aaron layer says:

I was kindof joking! I actually thought you'd come up with a surprize move to extricate yourself from that hold! Even according to your definition a 'tap-out' is not a 'move' is it?

 

Depends if its from Heaven or from Earth :laugh:

The Bible does say the devil is the author of confusion. We have seen how he got his hands on even something so trivial as defining "good". Amazing.

 

spoken like a true gnostic

 

Who says faith is a work?

 

Yet, earlier when ask to define 'good,' you insisted that only God was good? How can it be that God is the only good yet he created something good?

I would venture to say that Calvinism holds men in much higher regard than we do. After all, you believe the lost hate a God who first hated them. And chose to reject a God who first rejected them. While we, on the other hand, believe the lost hate God despite his love and gracious provisions. Which is worse, a man who hates a God who already rejected him from birth; or a man who hates a God who loves and genuinely calls them to reconciliation? You think much too highly of mankind.

 

:applause:
Welcome to Aaronism!

 

That is right Winman, and Aaron is smart enough to recognize that he was caught in this inconsistency, which is why he responded with such a hateful post. It is as blatant a display of childish avoidance I've ever seen.

Summary:

Aaron: You believe men merit or earn their salvation.
Us: No, we do not. We couldn't even believe if not for God's gracious provision through the gospel.
Aaron: Is faith good? And if it's good is meritorious.
Us: Faith is good in that it is the right thing to do, but its not meritorious. Faith isn't a work. Faith doesn't earn our salvation. God graciously chooses to count our faith as righteousness. We are saved by Grace through faith. Faith is not a meritorious work.
Aaron: Yes it is.
Us: So, then to you believe we are saved by Grace through works? Because even works effectually produced by God in us are still works, so how do you avoid that charge?
Aaron: You're stupid. I don't want to talk to you any more dummy. Nananananananana [runs away with fingers in his ears]

 

Many Calvinists do, including several here at BB.

Here are portions (for brevity only) of an article from a Reformed teacher. Read carefully and you will see that he argues that if a person believes faith precedes regeneration, then faith would be a work.

Source:

http://www.monergism.com/faithwork.html

Basically put, this author is saying that if a man believes man has the ability to believe, then faith is a work. But if the Holy Spirit produces this faith, then it is not a work.

But if faith is a work before regeneration, then it is a work after regeneration as well. If you teach that believing is a work, then Calvinism teaches a person is saved by works, as all Calvinists agree you must believe to be saved.

Many Calvinists hold this view, several here at BB. Read Savedbymercy's posts, he has said many times that faith is a work.

 

Aaron backed himself into a corner by insisting that we believe in works based salvation. He asks, "Is faith good?" Because he wants us to say, "Yes, it is good." And then he can say, "See, you believe you are saved by good works!" Because he thinks anything that is good must be meritorious (deserving salvation). We showed him several times in scripture where it speaks of people doing 'good' things that are NOT meritorious. For example, a parent may give his child bread instead of a snake, which is good. It doesn't earn his way into heaven, mind you, but it is still the 'right things to do.' It is moral. It is in accordance with the law. Unbelievers can do 'good' (moral) things, but still not merit salvation.

We have attempted to explain to him that while faith is the right thing to do, it is NOT meritorious, it's not a 'good work'. In other words, we don't deserve salvation because we believe in Christ. We don't earn God's grace by our faith. That is NOT our view, yet that is what we are being accused of believing. We believe that God graciously chose to count our faith as righteousness. This is purely a gracious choice on God's part, as our faith doesn't deserve such a gift. We don't earn anything. If anything we are admitting we can't earn it and must rely on a substitute, a 'crutch,' to help us.

But we also pointed out to Aaron that if he continues to maintain that faith is meritorious that it creates the same problem for him, because even a work effectually produced by God's grace is still a work and I doubt he would be willing to admit that we are saved by Grace through works. We aren't sure, because he refuses to respond.

 

Calvinists do not believe faith is a work and do not believe we are saved by works, except the work of God only.

What you are describing of the author is called reductio ad absurdum.
The key word here is "if". Calvinists believe faith is a gift from God, not a work of man.

Key word: "if". He is not saying that faith is a work.

Key word: "if". No Calvinist believes faith is a human work. It is a gift of God, not a work.

No Calvinist holds the view that faith is a work. Savedbymercy is not a good example. He is a hyper Cal or something, but certainly not orthodox.

 

Give me a break Amy, he asks if it is possible for faith to be a work. Then he says if a person believes we can autonomously believe, then faith is a work.

He falls into the same trap as Aaron. If faith is a work before regeneration, it is still a work after regeneration and a person is saved by works.

Faith is either a work or it is not, it doesn't matter whether it occurs before regeneration or after, if it is a work, then we are saved by works.

That author also misrepresents all non-Cals, as no non-Cal believes he can believe without the word of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I bet I have posted a dozen times that no man could possibly believe in Jesus unless God had revealed him to us through his word. We are also convicted by his word. So, no non-Cal ever claims to be able to believe without the grace of God. Of course, when you can not win an argument on merit, you simply misrepresent your opponent.

But that author was absolutely saying if a person believes before regeneration, then faith is a work. Many Calvinists teach this.

Why do you think we non-Cals are constantly accused of saving ourselves by Calvinists? It is because they view believing as a work.

 

The source of faith is at question. Is it a fruit of the Spirit, or is it something that one possesses by nature?

If it is a fruit of the Spirit, then it is good. If it is carnal faith, IOW, a faith one possesses by nature like that of a child's belief in Santa Claus, or another's belief in global warming or the evolution of man (all of which none need the Spirit to believe), then it is evil.

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree evil and its fruit evil.

Scan et al insist that evil trees can bring forth good fruit, and you see their hardhearted clinging to that tenet despite the clear and straighforward witness of the Spirit which was plainly laid before their eyes in this thread.

 

No, Christ insisted that only God was good, and when you missed your cue to carry that judgment to its ultimate meaning, I went on to spoonfeed you erasing your illusory distinction between that which is good and that which has intrinsic value, i.e. merit.

Here's the deal. Do you not believe Christ's words? He says none is good but God. More than that, He instructs us to judge one's fruit according to his state of being. If one is evil, his fruit is evil—all of it.

[edit]Again, all things were created good, but not incorruptible. Adam was corrupted, and all his progeny is corrupt. Only the New Creation is incorruptible.[/edit]

 

I've never held it to be a work. It is a state of being. Scan and his Scandalites hold it to be a work, insisting that one may choose to believe or not to believe, then they have to manufacture their convoluted theologies of grace to explain God's acceptance of this work.