Born Anew?

[SovereignGrace]

Whatever you want to believe, God will honor that, but we must pay the price of what we believe.

It will not be overlooked.

That’s not my point, Paul said he could do “all things” through Christ Jesus which gives him strength[Philippians 4:13]. If “all things” means literally “all things” through Christ Jesus, then lying, stealing, murdering, committing idolatry, adultery, &c., would be included in “all things”, as “all means all and that’s all that all means.”

 

[Charlie24]

That’s not my point, Paul said he could do “all things” through Christ Jesus which gives him strength[Philippians 4:13]. If “all things” means literally “all things” through Christ Jesus, then lying, stealing, murdering, committing idolatry, adultery, &c., would be included in “all things”, as “all means all and that’s all that all means.”

SG, I'm wondering if you have ever read the context of Phil 4:13?

Paul is speaking of abasement, to rejoice in the Lord "both to be full and to be hungry."

He is saying he can be happy in the Lord when times are good and when times are not so good.

His strength is coming from the Lord not his surrounding and he can abound (do all things) in the Lord.

 

[SovereignGrace]

SG, I'm wondering if have ever read the context of Phil 4:13?

Paul is speaking of abasement, to rejoice in the Lord "both to be full and to be hungry."

He is saying he can be happy in the Lord when times are good and when times are not so good.

His strength is coming from the Lord not his surrounding and he can abound (do all things) in the Lord.

And these things just go “whoosh!” by you. He said he could do all things, HOWEVER, all things, in context, does not mean he can do LITERALLY all things through Christ Jesus which strengthens him. He, nor can any believer, commit the things I listed previously through Christ Jesus and be strengthened through them. So “all things” does not mean literally all things.


Here’s another example: a dad sees his child with the only bag of chips in the house and tells them to not eat all the chips. Obviously, he does not mean all the chips ever made, or every chip in the world now, but all the chips in the house. So all the chips, again, does not mean every chip in the world.

 

[Charlie24]

And these things just go “whoosh!” by you. He said he could do all things, HOWEVER, all things, in context, does not mean he can do LITERALLY all things through Christ Jesus which strengthens him. He, nor can any believer, commit the things I listed previously through Christ Jesus and be strengthened through them. So “all things” does not mean literally all things.


Here’s another example: a dad sees his child with the only bag of chips in the house and tells them to not eat all the chips. Obviously, he does not mean all the chips ever made, or every chip in the world now, but all the chips in the house. So all the chips, again, does not mean every chip in the world.

So what does all mean in, "God has called all men everywhere to repent."

Obviously in Calvinism God has not called all men everywhere to repent, only those of His choice.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So what does all mean in, "God has called all men everywhere to repent."

Obviously in Calvinism God has not called all men everywhere to repent, only those of His choice.

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,[Acts 17:30]

I think the KJV uses “commanded” whereas the NASB uses “declaring”. Just because God has commanded all men to repent, the command to repent should never be confused with ability to repent. Too many places show repentance being a gift of God.


There is an external call and internal call. The external call goes out to all ppl indiscriminately, through the proclamation of the gospel. The internal call is God drawing ppl to Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Charlie24]

Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,[Acts 17:30]

I think the KJV uses “commanded” whereas the NASB uses “declaring”. Just because God has commanded all men to repent, the command to repent should never be confused with ability to repent. Too many places show repentance being a gift of God.


There is an external call and internal call. The external call goes out to all ppl indiscriminately, through the proclamation of the gospel. The internal call is God drawing ppl to Christ through the working of the Holy Spirit.

LOL, what is the purpose in a call to repentance when God hasn't chosen them for repentance?

This is just more of the Calvinist Handbook of reasoning something they can't exlpain.

It's insanity!

 

[SovereignGrace]

LOL, what is the purpose in a call to repentance when God hasn't chosen them for repentance?

This is just more of the Calvinist Handbook of reasoning something they can't exlpain.

It's insanity!

Believer what ever you wish my friend. May the Lord richly bless you is my prayer for you and your family. Every one of us will stand or fall before our master.

 

[Charlie24]

Believer what ever you wish my friend. May the Lord richly bless you is my prayer for you and your family. Every one of us will stand or fall before our master.

On that we agree!

 

[Silverhair]

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose but you are creating a false dichotomy here. The "conditions" you listed are all of God and have nothing to do with our activity. The fact is, Calvinists like Owen and Edwards indeed put faith as the sole "condition" on our part for salvation. Non-Calvinists have the same 3 conditions in that 1. The plan is that all who believe are the elect. 2. All receive a gracious invitation. 3. You have to have been one for whom the unlimited atonement was meant. This is a meaningless argument.

Dave you are just showing that you have a selective view.

1. The plan is that all who believe are the elect.
That is not what calvinism says Dave.
It says that only those that have been pre chosen can believe. You are playing word games Dave and that is not what I would expect from you.

Once you have been saved you are then one of the elect not before you are saved as calvinism would have us think.

2. All receive a gracious invitation.
How is Irresistible Grace a gracious invitation. Being forced to come to someone, then it is no longer an invitation.

3. You have to have been one for whom the unlimited atonement was meant.
But Dave calvinism says that it is a limited atonement. That only those chosen before the foundation of the world will be atoned for. Are you now disagreeing with the view you say you hold.

The DoG/TULIP are not biblical no matter how much one tries to twist them around.

Only those that are included in the Unconditional Election [chosen before the foundation of the world] that will partake of the Limited Atonement [Christ only covered their sins] will then be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace. [God does not draw He forces them to come] So all men do not have an equal chance to know or trust in God. The DoG/TULIP theology precludes this. But it seems those who hold to that view do not want to acknowledge that fact.
According to the Calvinist/Reformed view, if you are not part of this select group then you are doomed form the start.

 

[Ben1445]

Bear in mind that when we answer these questions, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.

I disagree with this one.
If we didn’t ever sin, we couldn’t be called sinners who haven’t yet sinned.
It is almost pointless to discuss because “all have sinned,” but Adam existed and was not a sinner until he sinned. Romans 5 is clear enough, that, though sin entered by one, and death on all, it was not because one had, rather it is that all have sinned,

 

[Ben1445]

Here's where theology acts as a proper "guardrail". We all agree that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved. I have Owen's quote on that. A Calvinist will say that everyone who comes is "elect" for sure, and you might say that they became "elect" when they come - but once again, everyone agrees that those saved are elect.
But without any application of theology you are left with severe and troubling questions. With your emphasis on the free will of the individual I have to ask, is God allowed to convict? If so, what if he convicts one person more than another? What happens in a time of spiritual awakening in a certain area or time? I mean, how does this happen randomly based only upon the free will of individuals? If it happens due to God then is it "fair" to the rest of the people that it did not happen equally in their area or time period. What I am saying is what I have always said regarding these things. And that is if you reject the doctrines of grace on the basis of fairness then you are still facing the exact same problem with any influence or conviction of the Holy Spirit because of the inequalities that exist as part of the human condition. The only way out of this it seems would be to have a specific set of things to do, easily understood, and then say that those who do such will be saved and the others lost. But then you are back at that troubling statement "ye must be born again", and you are back depending upon the mercy of God.

I'm not saying you have to swallow Calvinism hook, line and sinker. But I do ask that you look at the fact that your system also as ramifications and logical conclusions that present difficulties too.

Well stated.

Jesus does answer this thought in His statement that it will be more tolerable for some than others.

Matt. 11:21-24
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.

In other words, God judges fairly knowing what opportunities each person has had and not judging the same on all though one may have sat under a Spurgeon while another under a John Doe amongst preachers.
It will be more tolerable for some.

 

[Silverhair]

You were doing OK until you get to this and this is the downfall of free willers. That statement cannot be true unless God is exerting exactly an equal amount of grace toward each individual ever born, and in whatever circumstances - otherwise, it is not fair.

Have you not read in your bible

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Rom 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

God has said man is without excuse and then even shows us that it is by their free will that they reject Him.

Where calvinism fails is that they think free will is only one directional but the bible says otherwise.

Rom 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Rom 5:2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

If it's all based on my decision then it simply is not fair if I never got to see miracles showed to others, or had the same conviction of sin, or even had consequences of my sin lead to devastating results that helped me reevaluate my path - moreso than others. The fact is you are on just as shaky ground as the Calvinists you criticize.

Why do calvinist's always fall back to God having to be fair. The bible does not say that but it does tell us that he is just as I have pointed out to you.

God will judge each person on the light that they have and how they respond to the light.

Did you see miracles before you were saved Dave? I know i did not.

You seem to be under the impression that each person has to have exactly the same experience prior to them trusting in God for their salvation. That is not biblical or even logical.

Why one person will trust and another will not is a mystery but that is the reality we see everyday. What will humble one person will just harden another.

The difference between calvinism and biblical salvation is like night and day. One is true the other is just a man-made version of truth.

Mine and those that have freely trusted in Christ for our salvation are standing on solid rock those that are trusting in the calvinist hope that they we chosen before creation are standing on shifting sand.

My objection is you pretending that this would be somehow more "fair" or just than God himself sovereignly saving some. Your system is not fair

 

[Charlie24]

I disagree with this one.
If we didn’t ever sin, we couldn’t be called sinners who haven’t yet sinned.
It is almost pointless to discuss because “all have sinned,” but Adam existed and was not a sinner until he sinned. Romans 5 is clear enough, that, though sin entered by one, and death on all, it was not because one had, rather it is that all have sinned,

We were born sinners. David said in sin did my mother conceive me.

We sin because we are born sinners. Adam was never born, he was created and when he fell we all fell with him, born in sin.

 

[Ben1445]

We were born sinners. David said in sin did my mother conceive me.

We sin because we are born sinners. Adam was never born, he was created and when he fell we all fell with him, born in sin.

So if you never sin, would you be a sinner? A person is not a thief because they will steal in the future, they are when they steal. If they have not stolen anything, you may not rightfully title them as a thief.
But again, all have sinned, so all are sinners.

It really is semantics. But I have to disagree with you. The title describes the person in sin, not the person independent of sin.

So when Jesus removed the guilt of the sin from us, we are no longer considered sinners because of the absence of the sin that made us sinners.

 

[Charlie24]

We were born sinners. David said in sin did my mother conceive me.

We sin because we are born sinners. Adam was never born, he was created and when he fell we all fell with him, born in sin.

You may not care for this example, but I thought it was interesting.

An evangelist came to our church years ago with an unusual sermon, it involved a short video.

The sermon was on the sin nature/ born sinners.

In the sermon he showed a short video of 2 toddlers in a play pen with one given a toy. The toddler began shaking the toy and it made a noise, the other toddler began crying and tried to take to toy. The other toddler hit him in the head with it and the toy fell in the play pen. Then they both began trying to pick up the toy while slapping and pushing away the other.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do calvinist's always fall back to God having to be fair. The bible does not say that but it does tell us that he is just as I have pointed out to you.

Simply because your chief argument against Calvinism is that there is an some sort of injustice or unfairness if salvation is not equally presented to every individual and each person has an equal opportunity to decide what to do. That is your argument, not mine. In an earlier post I laid out the complications this presents for your side and you have not replied to those issues.

Once again. Although I am not a strict Calvinist, I am asking all you non-Calvinists this. If it would be wrong for God, looking over truly guilty people, all of whom are justly under condemnation, and choose to save some and not others, then is it not equally unfair to convict some more than others, to allow the life circumstances of some to be more difficult than others, to give eye witness accounts to some and not others and to give discernment to some more than others also? You argue against Calvinist theology on the basis that it doesn't give everyone a fair chance, or that everyone gets an equal invitation. In real life this is completely impossible and does not really exist. The simple fact is that our best, no in reality our only hope is in a gracious work of God upon us. Without that we are undone and without hope. The idea that God provides the provision for us to come to Christ and the rest is up to us is absurd and unscriptural and flies in the face of all we know about our human condition. It is attractive to our fleshly minds to think that because by definition that allows us to take the credit for our wise use of the means provided for our salvation.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I disagree with this one.
If we didn’t ever sin, we couldn’t be called sinners who haven’t yet sinned.
It is almost pointless to discuss because “all have sinned,” but Adam existed and was not a sinner until he sinned. Romans 5 is clear enough, that, though sin entered by one, and death on all, it was not because one had, rather it is that all have sinned,

That would be like saying an apple tree does not become an apple tree until it bears apples. Even as a sapling, it is still an apple tree, because it is an apple tree before it can even bear fruit. The apples are the evidence it is an apple tree. Same with peach trees, pear trees, &c.

 

[Silverhair]

Simply because your chief argument against Calvinism is that there is an some sort of injustice or unfairness if salvation is not equally presented to every individual and each person has an equal opportunity to decide what to do.

I have to ask you again where do you see me saying that God has to be fair? I have said that He is just and even quoted a verse that states that so please get you facts straight Dave.

The bible tells us that the world can know God and that the Holy Spirit convicts all and that the light of the world has come. So if God says all can know Him then why do you say they cannot?

You argue against Calvinist theology on the basis that it doesn't give everyone a fair chance, or that everyone gets an equal invitation. In real life this is completely impossible and does not really exist.

Your calvinist theology does not give all an equal chance. You seem to be stuck on God having to be fair why is that Dave? The bible does not say He has to be fair so why the fixation on your part?

The bible says all can know God so I will trust that the Holy Spirit is right and you are wrong.

Again your calvinist theology does not give all an equal chance to come to God for salvation.

Do all have Unconditional Election? How about being drawn by Irresistible Grace? And of course we should not miss that not all are not part of that Limited Atonement.

Dave you are being willfully blind when you ignore the realities of the view you are holding.

The idea that God provides the provision for us to come to Christ and the rest is up to us is absurd and unscriptural and flies in the face of all we know about our human condition. It is attractive to our fleshly minds to think that because by definition that allows us to take the credit for our wise use of the means provided for our salvation.

Have not read
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes,

Or how about
Rom 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

It is clear that you have a hard time trusting what God has said in regard to our salvation.

I am sure you have read these verse more than once Dave but do you actually believe what they say?

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I only ask because you keep saying that if it were left to man then he would never trust in God. But Paul says differently:
Act 16:30 ... "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 ..."Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,...

Now lets look at this from the calvinist perspective:
Act 16:30 ... "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 ..."Nothing, you just have to hope that you were one of the lucky ones that were picked out before the foundation of the world.

 

[SovereignGrace]

LOL, what is the purpose in a call to repentance when God hasn't chosen them for repentance?

This is just more of the Calvinist Handbook of reasoning something they can't exlpain.

It's insanity!

I am going to give you the Reformed understanding of soteriology, I will try to be precise as to not make the post too lengthy so that you type "TLDR".

God, in His foreknowledge (and His foreknowledge is not merely Him knowing ahead of time but it is a Greek verb, meaning He did something in this foreknowing) knew about the fall, and had the plan already in place to remedy that fall. After the fall, God gave the first prophecy, the first proclamation of the gospel when He said to the Serpent, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”[Genesis 3:15] Here we see a clear line of demarcation between the sheep and goat, the elect and non-elect. Both sides agree there are two groups I just mentioned, but both arrive at the same conclusion via different means. Later we see that the world is completely wicked when we read, Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.[Genesis 6:5] Here God could have justly condemned the whole Adam race and completely wiped them (us) out, but we can take comfort in these words, But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.[Genesis 6:5] Noah found favor (grace in the KJV, iirc, when means unmerited favor), so Noah was no better in the sight of God than the rest, but he (Noah) found favor in God's sight.

There were eight souls saved during the flood and then later we see God coming to Abram, who was an idol worshiper in Ur of the Chaldees. God makes him a promise that he would make him the father of many nations, and that the number of his seed was as much, if not more, than the sand on the seashores and the stars in the sky. Later Joseph gets sold into slavery and makes his way up to next in command to Pharoah, and Jacob and his family, along with their livestock move to Egypt and survive the drought and famine. Eventually another Pharoah rises to the throne who knew nothing of Joseph and that Pharoah and evil entreats the ppl of God and He sends them Moses and Aaron to deliver them out of Egypt.

God later says these words that show those He chose was based solely upon Himself and nothing inherently good within them, "For you are a holy people to the Lord your God; the Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."[Deuteronomy 7:6-8] And to further drive home this point, He said “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth;.”[Amos 3:2a] So, God has always been a particular God to a particular ppl.

God choosing Israel based solely upon Himself and absolutely nothing from them, mirrors His electing grace in the NT. The elect are the elect based solely upon Him, not them. There was not something special in them that was missing in the non-elect, nor were the non-elect more wicked than the non-elect, and that caused Him to choose them.

And this story is replete in both Testaments.

 

[Ben1445]

That would be like saying an apple tree does not become an apple tree until it bears apples. Even as a sapling, it is still an apple tree, because it is an apple tree before it can even bear fruit. The apples are the evidence it is an apple tree. Same with peach trees, pear trees, &c.

Not really at all. Sin is corruption and are not corrupted until corruption is there.
As far as your apples and peaches, the answer is yes, people are still people even if they don’t have children yet. But people without sin cannot be called sinners as long as they are without sin. It is a hypothetical sort of statement. I have said several times already that all have sinned. But the corruption must be there first before you can used the adjective to describe person as being corrupt.

A bicycle is not made of rust and then shows its true makeup when left in the rain. Oxidation corrupts it. You can’t call a clean rust free car a rust bucket if it has no rust.
There must be the corruption in order to be corrupt.
You cannot be corrupt without any corruption. Again, I do not say that anyone without corruption exists outside of Christ.