-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
confused about Calvin
- Thread starter psalm40.17
- Start date
Jesus was "ordained" (to come) "BEFORE" the foundation of the world.
1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world,
"IF" God created a "Perfect world", then "WHY" would he also have to create a "Redeemer"???
Was sin the results of "God's predestine "WILL" or the "FREE WILL CHOICE" given to Adam/Eve in the Garden???
Then you agree that the "WILL OF GOD" was for "Adam/Eve" to be "FREE" to make their own "CHOICE",
And the necessity of Jesus's coming was because of the wrong choice Adam/Eve made, sin not being "God's WILL".
Calvinist takes the "Blame" for sin being in the world/man away from man (adam) and places it on God through his "predestine will".
That idea was wrong in the garden, and it's still wrong today, neither God or his plan have changed.
It's "BECAUSE" God gave man the "FREE WILL" to "CHOSE" between "GOOD/EVIL" that sin exist, and that choice still exist today
If we chose the good, (Jesus/Spirit) we're saved,
If we chose the evil (lust of flesh), we're not.
The offer of "freedom from sin" is made to as many as were made sinners through Adam.
Ro 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
In the garden, God gave man the "Free will" to chose between "Good/Evil" for a "purpose", as "Sons of God" we're empowered to make "Choices" as "gods".
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Having "Dominion" over the earth, make us gods of this earth, but not of "Heaven".
Because of "Free will" sin has premeated all flesh to the point "IT" (flesh) can't be saved, God said it you'll just "BELIEVE", have "FAITH", I'll save you, so it's for "Belief/unbelief" we're "JUDGED".
"CONDEMNATION" is not because of sin", (all have sinned) but because they chose to reject the "Redeemer" and remain "IN THEIR SIN",
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because (why they are condemned)
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
It's the Rejection of Jesus that bring condemnation to man, not his sin, not the law,
The "FIRST" determination made in God's Court will be to determine if you have "Accepted/Rejected" Jesus,
only "AFTER" this is determined, can the law of "death for sin" be applied to the correct person, Jesus/person.
The fact the God isn't willing for any to perish, yet will condemn as the law requires, "PROVES", God's will isn't being done, and that he is an "IMPARTIAL JUDGE" in "Judgement".
Calvin's doctrine doesn't allow Judgment/condemnation for "unbelief", but according to the Judges "predilection", completely ignoring "LAW" and "JUSTICE" according to the "principle of law".
You either are blind to it or you will never get it.
What do you think it means? All men are born spiritually dead which means spiritually SEPARATED from God. To deny that is to deny a major theme of the Bible.
Wrong...this is finite, humanistic reasoning. Your same logic fails when you apply this to Mary being the "mother of God". It does not work.
Let's see...the phrase "spiritually dead" by your definition means only spiritually dead, nothing else. Nice way to weasel out of giving a proper definition, one that kills the true meaning for calvinists.
First, my quote was a question not a statement. Second, with your definition of spiritually dead, all of the verses in the Bible telling us to choose are lies. Herein lies the problem with calvinism. If we are commanded to choose, repent, follow, etc., and we are all "dead" according to your term "dead", the Bible is filled with lies.
webdog said:
You either are blind to it or you will never get it.
I quoted your very words to you. If you wish to retract your arguments, please do so, but don't blame me for your own inability to reason coherently.
What do you think it means?
The same thing "dead" always means: Bereft of life. Unresponsive. Inactive. Incapable of being revived.
To be "spiritually dead" means that one is those things with respect to God.
[On A=B, B=C, therefore B=C]
Wrong...this is finite, humanistic reasoning.
Yeah yeah yeah. Copout. Prove me wrong.
Let's see...the phrase "spiritually dead" by your definition means only spiritually dead, nothing else. Nice way to weasel out of giving a proper definition, one that kills the true meaning for calvinists.
"Proper definition"? Now who's the one using "humanistic reasoning"?
First, my quote was a question not a statement.
Is that why you put a period at the end of it instead of a question mark? (Or is using proper grammar and punctuation another symptom of "humanistic" writing?)
Second, with your definition of spiritually dead, all of the verses in the Bible telling us to choose are lies. Herein lies the problem with calvinism.
Wrong again. No Calvinist would argue that unregenerate, spiritually dead men are incapable of choosing. They are perfectly capable of choosing anything that is consistent with their nature as spiritually dead men unresponsive to God. And they are morally responsible for their choices.
If we are commanded to choose, repent, follow, etc., and we are all "dead" according to your term "dead", the Bible is filled with lies.
That is a categorical error. Commands do not have truth value. They give instructions to be followed.
You either are blind to it or you will never get it.
I quoted your very words to you. If you wish to retract your arguments, please do so, but don't blame me for your own inability to reason coherently.
What do you think it means?
The same thing "dead" always means: Bereft of life. Unresponsive. Inactive. Incapable of being revived.
To be "spiritually dead" means that one is those things with respect to God.
[On A=B, B=C, therefore B=C]
Wrong...this is finite, humanistic reasoning.
Yeah yeah yeah. Copout. Prove me wrong.
Let's see...the phrase "spiritually dead" by your definition means only spiritually dead, nothing else. Nice way to weasel out of giving a proper definition, one that kills the true meaning for calvinists.
"Proper definition"? Now who's the one using "humanistic reasoning"?
First, my quote was a question not a statement.
Is that why you put a period at the end of it instead of a question mark? (Or is using proper grammar and punctuation another symptom of "humanistic" writing?)
Second, with your definition of spiritually dead, all of the verses in the Bible telling us to choose are lies. Herein lies the problem with calvinism.
Wrong again. No Calvinist would argue that unregenerate, spiritually dead men are incapable of choosing. They are perfectly capable of choosing anything that is consistent with their nature as spiritually dead men unresponsive to God. And they are morally responsible for their choices.
If we are commanded to choose, repent, follow, etc., and we are all "dead" according to your term "dead", the Bible is filled with lies.
That is a categorical error. Commands do not have truth value. They give instructions to be followed.
My direct quote is if you are dead, you are not well. I think this explains itself.
Incapable of being revived?!?! I guess nobody will be in Heaven, huh?
Learn the true meaning of being spiritually dead...then come back.
Mary is the mother of Jesus (A)...Jesus is God (B)...God is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (C). Under your humanistic reasoning A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, Mary is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Want more proof?
Try using your "humanistic" eyes to read properly or get some good glasses. There never was a period. I'll copy and paste it again for you... Spiritually dead means not being able to make choices...even those God gives us?
...according to calvinism. The Bible teaches different, however.
Commands do not have truth value? Are you sure about this? More humanistic reasoning. My God would not command something "untruthful", nor would He command something to someone if it could not be followed.
webdog said:
My direct quote is if you are dead, you are not well.
Incapable of being revived?!?! I guess nobody will be in Heaven, huh?
Wrong again. God raises the dead.
Mary is the mother of Jesus (A)...Jesus is God (B)...God is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (C). Under your humanistic reasoning A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, Mary is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
Thank you for proving that you have no clue what I was talking about. I suggest you stop taking logic lessons from Eliyahu.
Want more proof?
"More"?
...according to calvinism. The Bible teaches different, however.
That has yet to be proven by you.
Commands do not have truth value? Are you sure about this? More humanistic reasoning.
Once again, you do not prove me wrong.
My God would not command something "untruthful",
Of course not. Commands are not statements of fact, therefore they cannot, by definition, be true or false. (Sorry, I keep lapsing into "humanistic reasoning" again. But it's about the only way to deal with Objective Reality.)
You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
nor would He command something to someone if it could not be followed.
Who says?
My direct quote is if you are dead, you are not well.
You are being either forgetful, or deliberately dishonest. Kindly deal with the direct quote I quoted, not the one you imagined I quoted.
Incapable of being revived?!?! I guess nobody will be in Heaven, huh?
Wrong again. God raises the dead.
Mary is the mother of Jesus (A)...Jesus is God (B)...God is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (C). Under your humanistic reasoning A=B, B=C, therefore A=C, Mary is Holy, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
Thank you for proving that you have no clue what I was talking about. I suggest you stop taking logic lessons from Eliyahu.
Want more proof?
"More"?
...according to calvinism. The Bible teaches different, however.
That has yet to be proven by you.
Commands do not have truth value? Are you sure about this? More humanistic reasoning.
Once again, you do not prove me wrong.
My God would not command something "untruthful",
Of course not. Commands are not statements of fact, therefore they cannot, by definition, be true or false. (Sorry, I keep lapsing into "humanistic reasoning" again. But it's about the only way to deal with Objective Reality.)
You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you?
nor would He command something to someone if it could not be followed.
Who says?
This last statement about sums it up for you. You believe that God commands all men everywhere to repent...knowing that there is no way for them to repent. Your view of God is disturbing. If He commands all men to repent...they have the opportunity to repent. Period.
I am done with you and your pompous attitude and circular arguments in regards to this subject. Have a nice day.
4His_glory
New Member
Just because God commands somthing does not mean man can do it. God wants man to obey the law, but that is impossible for sinful man to do.
So just because God commands all men to repent does not mean that they can do it all of their own accord. God must enable them to repent.
Its not that there is no way for them to repent, its that the way is made availabel soley by the grace of God.
So just because God commands all men to repent does not mean that they can do it all of their own accord. God must enable them to repent.
Its not that there is no way for them to repent, its that the way is made availabel soley by the grace of God.
This last statement about sums it up for you.
No, it about sums it up for you. You seem to want me to accept an awful lot of nonsense on your own authority.
As I said: Who says a command implies an ability to carry out the command? Only you and a handful of Arminians, apparently. Certainly not the Bible.
You believe that God commands all men everywhere to repent...knowing that there is no way for them to repent.
False. There is a way for them to repent: if God grants them repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).
If He commands all men to repent...they have the opportunity to repent. Period.
And if Jesus commands all men that they must be perfect (Matt. 5:48), then all men have the ability to be perfect. Period.
Of course, once again you are trying to change the argument. No one has said that all men do not have the opportunity to repent. They have their entire lives to repent and will be without excuse at the Last Judgment if they do not. The real issue is whether they have the ability to repent, apart from God's grace in granting that ability to them.
No, it about sums it up for you. You seem to want me to accept an awful lot of nonsense on your own authority.
As I said: Who says a command implies an ability to carry out the command? Only you and a handful of Arminians, apparently. Certainly not the Bible.
You believe that God commands all men everywhere to repent...knowing that there is no way for them to repent.
False. There is a way for them to repent: if God grants them repentance (Acts 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25).
If He commands all men to repent...they have the opportunity to repent. Period.
And if Jesus commands all men that they must be perfect (Matt. 5:48), then all men have the ability to be perfect. Period.
Of course, once again you are trying to change the argument. No one has said that all men do not have the opportunity to repent. They have their entire lives to repent and will be without excuse at the Last Judgment if they do not. The real issue is whether they have the ability to repent, apart from God's grace in granting that ability to them.
Hello webdog.
How do you deal with this man? He issued the command to the 'untruthful' to go and succeed.
Your statement is unscriptural according to Exodus 4:21. According to the verse God hardened an heart exactly for the reason of issuing a command that could not be obeyed. Could you explain this please?
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt 5:48 must be a bright light on your error. Do you admit to being in error?
john.
1KI 22:22 " `By what means?' the LORD asked. " `I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " `You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. `Go and do it.'
How do you deal with this man? He issued the command to the 'untruthful' to go and succeed.
My God told Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave but He hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not obey. How do you deal with this webdog? ...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Exodus 4:21.
Your statement is unscriptural according to Exodus 4:21. According to the verse God hardened an heart exactly for the reason of issuing a command that could not be obeyed. Could you explain this please?
Not if they had no atonement made for them. Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14 says that no atonement was given for Eli's household therefore no command was issued for 'all men' to repent otherwise God would be commanding something that Eli's house could not have obeyed.
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt 5:48 must be a bright light on your error. Do you admit to being in error?
john.
me4- I like the fact that you seem to use more Scripture than many, and would sugggest we are closeer than some.
For most others, I am interested in logia, and think that is important. But I would offer that theologia is far more important, and always trumps. To the point of being absolute.
johnp. I dunno' but it sounds to me like an awful lot of weight is being put on "Go and do it.", to me. Enough to make Atlas shrug. A command is followed by an exclamation point in English. Is there one there, or did I miss it? How about Matt. 5:48? If I follow, one has to be perfect. So I guess anyone that sins, from whenever I'm not sure, is not perfect, and therefore has never yet or ever been saved. Am I right? So, as Calvin is reputedly reported to have said that on his deathbed, he could not be sure, I won't be able to be sure either as long as I draw a breath. That is assuring to me? I don't think so. Think I'll go along with I John 5:10-13. Suits me better!
Ed
For most others, I am interested in logia, and think that is important. But I would offer that theologia is far more important, and always trumps. To the point of being absolute.
johnp. I dunno' but it sounds to me like an awful lot of weight is being put on "Go and do it.", to me. Enough to make Atlas shrug. A command is followed by an exclamation point in English. Is there one there, or did I miss it? How about Matt. 5:48? If I follow, one has to be perfect. So I guess anyone that sins, from whenever I'm not sure, is not perfect, and therefore has never yet or ever been saved. Am I right? So, as Calvin is reputedly reported to have said that on his deathbed, he could not be sure, I won't be able to be sure either as long as I draw a breath. That is assuring to me? I don't think so. Think I'll go along with I John 5:10-13. Suits me better!
Ed
Yes, we're born with the knowledge of "good/evil", kids know "right from wrong", even if they can't explain why.
Ro 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,
A person of "MORALS" will by his nature do the things contained in the law, even if they have never heard the law.
Their consciences and moral sense are a law. (written on their hearts)
I considered explaining how the "knowledge of Good/Evil" dictates the "FREE WILL" of man, but those of a calvinist mind seem to have a shallow understanding of scripture, why type what they can't comprehend??
Calvin's "error" is denying the fact that "ALL MEN" have an equal opportunity to be saved, but that's a requirement of "law", just as the law was given for the knowledge of sin, so is it necessary for the knowledge of "redemption" from sin, hence Jesus preaching those who died prior to his arrival and the gospel being preached to the whole world since.
Under the OT, sacrifices was the "knowledge" given for the "Forgiveness of sin", under the NT, Jesus is the "knowledge" of "Redemption from sin", but you see how the law requires both the knowledge of, redemption from sin, must be made know if "JUSTICE" is to be rendered.
Under the OT, if you didn't "physically" commit adultery, you wasn't guilty, but Jesus said if you look/think, you're guilty,
"Obedience" was moved from the "physical acts" of "FLESH" to the "CONSCIENCE", if we have the "conscience" (will/faith) to serve God, he'll save, however God "NEVER" imposes "salvation" on a person unless it is in accordance with their "WILL", a house divided can't stand.
"predestination" would require the condemnation of some who would be saved, and the salvation of some who would not be save, but none will be in Heaven/Hell, except by the choices they made.
Hello Ed nice to meet you.
He sends lies to deceive people. God is Sovereign why should anyone say 'nay'? He does as He pleases with us.
Nothing unclean can come before the Lord of glory.
1 Cor 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
As far as my Father is concerned I have the righteousness of Christ, my Federal Head, and I am beyond reproach in His Eyes. I am found in the Second Adam and receive those things that are due to Him as the unsaved find themselves in the first Adam and receive those things due to him. Nice balance.
What yer think?
john.
It doesn't matter. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 2 Thess 2:11. For here He sends the strong delusion Personally.
He sends lies to deceive people. God is Sovereign why should anyone say 'nay'? He does as He pleases with us.I don't know of Atlas but the sentence gave me a feeling of indifference. Is that right? But to shrug it off: Rom 11:7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8 as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
You do indeed follow it.
Nothing unclean can come before the Lord of glory.We are conceived dead in sin, PS 51:5. We sin because of that, sinning doesn't make us sinners but sinning is a symptom of the problem.
1 Cor 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
As far as my Father is concerned I have the righteousness of Christ, my Federal Head, and I am beyond reproach in His Eyes. I am found in the Second Adam and receive those things that are due to Him as the unsaved find themselves in the first Adam and receive those things due to him. Nice balance.
No.
'So, as Calvin is reputedly...' ? What? I am noble I am. I listen to the things people say and I check the scriptures to see if what they say is right or not. If they agree with scripture then I have a duty to believe it whether I like it or not. I have no choice in the matter have I? If I read that God hid the tree of life and said that man must not be allowed to reach out for it then that is what I have to believe. Gen 3:22.
What yer think?
john.
I don't know about webdog, but I can.
Ex 5:1 And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness.
2 And Pharaoh said,
Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go?
I know not the LORD,
neither will I let Israel go.
Who was the "FIRST" to "harden the heart", God or Pharaoh??
"Suppose" Pharaoh had said: OK Moses, take all
of Israel and go with my blessings, would Pharaoh have received a "Curse or blessing" from God??
God gives "opportunities", obedience reaps blessings, disobedience reaps a "curse", of which Pharaoh/Egypt reaped because Pharaoh harden his heart to God's "commandment", Let my people go.
"WE" reap what "WE" sow, (harden heart) God doesn't sow it "FOR US".
Me4Him.
...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Exodus 4:21.
Do you understand that? What problem do you have with that?
All our good works have been prepared in advance and we shall do them with or without our knowledge. "When did we see you hugry and feed you?" Matt 25:37.
john.
And that means God created people for Hell and sin was intrinsic to the plan of God.
I don't believe in if anymore. Rom 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
...But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Exodus 4:21.
Do you understand that? What problem do you have with that?
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. Eph 2:10.
All our good works have been prepared in advance and we shall do them with or without our knowledge. "When did we see you hugry and feed you?" Matt 25:37.
Yes and so the question remains doesn't it? One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" Until you are able to ask that anticipated question then you have not understood.
We do. He does.
john.
EdSutton said:
So, as Calvin is reputedly reported to have said that on his deathbed, he could not be sure,
Calvin's last will and testament, which was dictated about a month before his death, says:
So, as Calvin is reputedly reported to have said that on his deathbed, he could not be sure,
Calvin's last will and testament, which was dictated about a month before his death, says:
Calvin certainly doesn't sound to me like he wasn't sure which way he was going.
Timtoolman
New Member
Dead in sins = unable to respond, dead?
Dead to sins later in Romans = unable to sin or respond to sin?
Calvinist defining of dead shot in the head. If you let calvinist define or redefine terms it makdes a mess out of matters.(another is recieving a gift makes the reciever able to take credit in the gift for recieving it, hogwash) It is the same with thier labeling. Everyone not a calvinist is an arminian. It makes it impossiable to have an honest debate with most.
It has to be the bible that sets and defines the terms.
Also the bible does refer to those lost as being sick.
Dead to sins later in Romans = unable to sin or respond to sin?
Calvinist defining of dead shot in the head. If you let calvinist define or redefine terms it makdes a mess out of matters.(another is recieving a gift makes the reciever able to take credit in the gift for recieving it, hogwash) It is the same with thier labeling. Everyone not a calvinist is an arminian. It makes it impossiable to have an honest debate with most.
It has to be the bible that sets and defines the terms.
Also the bible does refer to those lost as being sick.
Why do you carry a "spare tire" in your car, are you "PLANNING" a flat tire, or do you hope it doesn't happen but nevertheless, you're prepared "IF" it does.
Why would a "Sovereign God" to have to create "TWO" perfect worlds in order to get "ONE"?
It doesn't make "ANY SENSE" to create this world and condemn some people to torment for eternity, people who will be "forgotten" after this world, then create "ANOTHER" perfect world where "N
NE" can sin, "WHY" didn't God just apply the same "Sovereignty" to the first perfect world as he will for the second perfect world and prevent "ANYONE" from going to hell??
"TOTAL SOVEREIGNTY" places God in a very "Mean, Cruel, Vindictive" light, and relieves man of any/all responsibility for his actions or sin.
Like to buy that horse??
On the other hand, if an imperfect world was possible, then God wasn't excercising "total Sovereignty, man is responsible for the imperfect world, and Jesus is the "spare tire" to carry "as many as "WILL" believe", over this imperfect world.
The fact that an imperfect world exist "PROVES" God isn't excercising "Total Sovereignty", else it would be "perfect".
Would it be necessary for God to harden "ANY HEART" if everyone obey God???
God has no pleasure in punishing the Disobedient, or destroying them, to say they were created for God to "shew his wrath" and destroy is a "LIE", We reap what we sow.
How do you explain "some mens" works being "burned", if God prepared them??
Lu 12:47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Ro 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
One of the problems with calvinist view is that is does not present a "BALANCE" view of God, but only a "Totally sovereign" God who creates souls for no other purpose than to condemn/destroy in order to show his wrath.
This of course presents "MAJOR CONTRADICTIONS" to "MAJOR COMPONENTS" of the plan of salvation,
1. God loving the whole world
2. Jesus not coming to condemn the world
3. Dying for sins of "Whole world"
God's plan would have the "WHOLE WORLD" saved, and "NO SOUL" condemned/destroyed.
God has "TWO SIDES", one of love, one of wrath,
and Jesus gave man the "CHOICE" of which "SIDE" he want's to stand on,
God prefers "ALL" would chose the "LOVE" side, and made it possible for "ALL",
"Wrath" is because of "Man's disobedience", not predestination,
"Justice" won't allow God to make a difference between "SINNERS" unless there is a difference, some chose to obey,
Only when "MAN'S WILL" and "GOD'S WILL" become "ONE", will God save.
Jos 24:15 choose you this day whom ye will serve;
Ro 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?