Are The Unsaved REALLY Free to NOT Sin?

[Iconoclast]

I am going to repeat again what I said in another thread. Why is it every thread you touch turns into a Calvin-free will debate? How can you take what I said and say I believe as a Calvinist. Personally, I think the man's life was unworthy of any doctrine named after him. That is not the point. If faith is not a gift, then where does it come from, evolution?

To draw the conclusion that I "believe God withholds faith from the unelect because He desires them to perish" borders on the insane. You could just have as easily said the sky is green based on my post and it would have made as much sense.

Your unreasonable attacks on those who believe in God's sovereignty make any objective observation from you impossible. To answer your question, no I do not believe God acts that way as you put the question. I also believe you have no idea about our limited knowledge of either side, as your posts are driven by emotion and a curious idea that your opinion equates to Biblical doctrine. By the way, you do the free will side no favors.

Well said brother!:thumbsup::thumbsup:......it does not lead to learning...just contention and strife...with an evil questioning of God's purpose:wavey:

 

[saturneptune]

I have never pretended to know who is saved and who is not, I don't know where you got that.

It is the position of most (not all) Calvinists that a person is born with a sin nature that is incapable of expressing faith in Jesus whether they hear the word of God or not. These persons believe that a person must be regenerated before they are able to have faith.

Whether you agree with this or not I do not know, but it is the doctrine of most Calvinists.

If this is so, wouldn't you agree that God withholds regeneration (and the ability to have faith) from the unelect because he desires that they perish?

The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but come to repentence. I do not know how many times I have to post this. First of all, where do you find in the Bible the word, unelect?

Secondly, again, the Bible is clear where faith comes from, by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. How does that square with your idea that people who believe in a sovereign God think He withholds faith.

I have no idea why you keep using the name Calvin to describe those who believe in sovereignty. As much as you detest the doctrine, why do you use his name? I told you in another post that I consider Calvin to be basically a power hungry thug. He had at least one person executed because they did not agree with him theologically. He preached for the seperation of church and state, yet created his own little theocracy, and had lots of flawed beliefs, like infant baptism. That is why I refer to the doctrines as doctrines of sovereignty and grace. So enough about Calvin, he is best forgotten.

In fairness to you, there are those on the other side of the question who are just as radical as you are. As I said before, neither you, or that person on the other side (cannot recall his name at the moment, as I have not posted in nearly a year), have any idea how the Lord mixes His sovereignty with man's choice in some fashion to carry out His will. This is evidenced by the fact that verse after verse is used to support both sides, and in the end, nothing is settled. Why? Because all of the arguments are opinion and not Biblical truth. Those who cannot tell the difference between opinion and Biblical truth have no business being a leader in a Christian vocation.

My personal opinion is that those who think they understand the mind of God on EITHER SIDE of this doctrine have no idea what they are talking about. Again, it is merely spreading their opinion, which is what an editorial page does every day.

What gets me about your side is the idea that we have something within ourselves to gain eternity. What irritates me about the other side is the the claim that the Lord delights in waving his magic regeneration wand and sending people to hell. Neither is correct, and the whole picture is understood by no one.

 

[Winman]

If there are elect (and there are) then there must be the unelect. If few are chosen, then most are not. (Mat 22:14)

The difference between the two sides is whether God elects only a few and regenerates these few so they are able to believe, or whether all men are able to believe and God chooses or elects those who do.

I believe all men can believe, and God has elected those he knew in his foreknowledge would.

The parable of the marriage in Matthew 22 shows which view is correct. Only those who obeyed the call and came with a wedding garment were chosen.

 

[saturneptune]

If there are elect (and there are) then there must be the unelect. If few are chosen, then most are not. (Mat 22:14)

The difference between the two sides is whether God elects only a few and regenerates these few so they are able to believe, or whether all men are able to believe and God chooses or elects those who do.

I believe all men can believe, and God has elected those he knew in his foreknowledge would.

The parable of the marriage in Matthew 22 shows which view is correct. Only those who obeyed the call and came with a wedding garment were chosen.

.
This post is just my opinion, as is all other posts on this subject. It seems you have limited your thinking to two positions, either yours, or the radicals on the other side, A or B. That is like chosing between a democrat and republican, or a D and F, neither is acceptable.

For example, why do you limit a belief about regeneration, as you call it? Your choice is either A. God elects some or He leaves them unelected or B. man has it within himself to come to the Lord in repentence. That is basically the limits of what you are saying on this subject. Why not a choice C, like the Lord regenerates all or most? Then of course you are getting into one of your five points, irrestible grace. Why do people put God into a box and require Him to think like our man made models?

That is why I tend to stay out of the threads of free will vs. sovereignty. It is post after post of someone's opinion, and everyone of them are right.

 

[JesusFan]

Those who preach in error here about faith not being a gift of God to the unregenerate at the time of salvation to believe hold to serious flaws not supported via Scriptures.

They would hold to man NOT being killed off spiritually by the fall of Adam, as the Bible states we have ALL died in our sins as a direct result of Adam sinning..

since man still can respond by this inherit faith they see All having, they would NOT be able to see just how/why we MUST have God at work to save us, as we ALL aree unable to come to God in and ourselves![quote/]

The major deficiency being they cannot prove from Scriptures that a person has inherent faith, as they argue that they do. But this aside, and what is even more grave in this matter, is that they preach what they've developed within their own reason as eternal truth. That is what is glaringly tragic here. Thus it is not truth that is being taught, it is error and is false teaching.

They err in just HOW Man is before God...

We are sinners by BOTH birth and by Choice, they tend to see it maily as choice that we make to actually sin...[quote/]

However, on the other hand the Scriptures clearly and concisely teach faith for salvation is the direct gift of God. Romans 10:17; Php. 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1-2.

The entire salvation process is of/from the Lord!

For God is the One who grants to us Grace/faith/repentance/gives us His HS etc

Due to our sinfulness and spiritual death...

God HAS to save us, IF left to ourselves, even IF the Gospel preached to us, as dead in sin, spirtually deaf/dumb/andblind!