Cured

[skypair]

So, you are saying that Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Enoch, Job, Noah, Samson, Ruth, Esther, Isaiah, Malachi, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Daniel, and those Old Testament saints named in Hebrews 11 were all of them unregenerate ?

Yes -- they will be "regenerate" in the "resurrection of the just" WHEN they will receive hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone, Jer 31:33.

Moses and Elijah are in heaven, in an unregenerate state ?

They are in heaven as, to use Paul's words in Heb 12:23, "the SPIRITS of just men made perfect" as opposed to being in the "general assembly and CHURCH of the firstborn."

Dead in sins and trespasses but in heaven, the land of the Living God ?

Actually, you KNOW you are leaving out a step in them getting to heaven, don't you! They didn't/couldn't go to heaven in soul and spirit until Jesus died making the REQUIRED sacrifice on their behalf. But guess what -- when He did, they were already disembodied. How then COULD they be "regenerate" -- that word meaning the BODY is indwelt by the SPIRIT of God?

skypair

 

[skypair]

However, I dont know what you do with the verses like "No man can come unto me unless my Father draws him." , ect. I believe I demonstrated how this does not mean to woo or entice, but rather to compel! Paraphrased, no one has the ability to come to God on his or her own, but it needs a divine initiating of salvation by God.

Andy,

We should start by saying the the Calivinists have gone to another "contrived" definition* of "draw" here. Yes, they compare Greek-to-Greek and say it means God "drags" the "elect" to Himself. Does that make sense to you? Does your God force you to believe on Him?

Draw means draw, Andy, as in Rom 1 where God reveals Himself to ALL mankind.

The interesting sequel to this is that all who believe are delivered out of darkness (justified) and then, just as Calvinism says, GIVEN or "TRANSLATED into the kingdom of His dear Son" -- regenerated! Col 1:13

But if you have that paradigm in your head, it is REALLY hard to get rid of it cause it fits into the rest of Calvinism's paradigm, doesn't it?

* If you will just think about it, Calvinism has a "dictionary" all its own -- words like all, everyone, whosoever, the world, sovereignty, regeneration -- the list is nearly endless! They are like theological "jargon." At work, I have pilot "jargon." If I spoke to you in it, you wouldn't comprehend a word I was saying! :laugh: Well, Calvinism is just like that. They make "strife out of words to no purpose but the subverting of the hearers." 1Tim 2:14

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

Yes -- they will be "regenerate" in the "resurrection of the just" WHEN they will receive hearts of flesh instead of hearts of stone, Jer 31:33.

They are in heaven as, to use Paul's words in Heb 12:23, "the SPIRITS of just men made perfect" as opposed to being in the "general assembly and CHURCH of the firstborn."

Actually, you KNOW you are leaving out a step in them getting to heaven, don't you! They didn't/couldn't go to heaven in soul and spirit until Jesus died making the REQUIRED sacrifice on their behalf. But guess what -- when He did, they were already disembodied. How then COULD they be "regenerate" -- that word meaning the BODY is indwelt by the SPIRIT of God?

skypair

Strange doctrine, you have.
Yep, Baptists are a peculiar lot, we are.
Well, go your merry way, Skypair.

 

[skypair]

Perhaps you don't understand what "effectual" means. "Effectual call" means that the call effects the response, or produces it. The "efficacy" is in the call and is demonstrated by the response. The response does not, and cannot, make the call efficacious.

Not so, Larry. If it was in the call, ALL would respond.

Like I said on another thread, you're proposing that God uses, in essence, a "dog whistle" that only the elect can hear. Still, the fact that only the "elect" can hear is based upon the hearer being a "dog," not upon an "effectual whistle!"

skypair

 

[skypair]

I always heard death means separation from God, too. However, it also signifies total inability.

Where?

skypair

 

[skypair]

Helen,

I don't think Calvinism defines death the way you say it does. Spiritual death is separation from God. It is not spiritual unconsciousness. I have never read anyone say that that I can recall, and certainly not a published author. Perhaps some have said it on some internet bulletin board somewhere. Do you know of any author or speaker who puts it that way?

You are conveniently ignoring the Calvinist interpretation of John 11:39-43 -- the resurrection of Lazarus, aren't you?

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

Pinoybaptist,

My friend, you have denied clear Scripture which makes belief in the message of Christ essential to salvation. Your distinction between eternal salvation and timely salvation is one unknown to the writers of Scripture. God works regeneration, whether before or after faith, in connection with the preaching of his Word. It is of the Lord alone that he does such, and he receives all the glory for it.

PL,

With all due respects to you.
The confusion in "Christendom" today stems from the fact that we are unable to, or refuse to, discern the difference between a salvation that begins with God, and God only, and ends with God, and God, only.

In so many ways the Bible is clear that God's elect's eternal salvation is not dependent on any other essentialities but God's mercy, His will, and Christ's obedience.

Not every instance where salvation is used in the Bible refers to eternal salvation. I think you also said that in one of your long ago posts, if I am not mistaken. If you did not, then I apologize for thinking it was you.

One poster quoted the Isaiah verse, for example, a verse whch was not directed to mankind, but almost always read and preached as if it were. It was directed to God's national people, Israel. Paul also said that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, and contextually, we know that he was not speaking to all mankind, but to Roman Christians, both Jew and Greek, and this is something he reiterated in 1 Corinthians 10.

The point ?

The Bible was not written so that we can preach the gospel or message of Christ to result in the eternal salvation of God's people.

It was written as good news of an already accomplished salvation to God's sheep, good news of their being brought home and reconciled to God through the work of the Annointed Messiah.

It is our record of how God loved us and provided for our salvation and reconciliation to Him, and how it is all His work, begins and ends with Him, with nothing in between.

The Bible therefore is an instruction book for God's already redeemed people on how to live in this fallen world while passing through it, looking forward to that time set by God when we all shall be home with Him where we belong.

The phrase timely salvation may not be found in the Scriptures, and neither is the rapture, but the principle is all over the book, from Old to New Testament.

 

[skypair]

I beg to differ with anyone who says a spiritually dead person who is dead in sins and trespasses. like the Ephesian believers, before God quickened them, are able to make spiritual decisions for himself on his own.

You, who do not even discern between soul and spirit, have the chutzpah to tell us unequivocally that man can do nothing -- is "totally unable?" Clearly you believe that as a tenet of dogma and not as anything that you prove on your own, right?

No one can conjure up faith. Emotions, yes. Emotions can be stirred by a hellfire, Bible thumping, saliva spewing, receive Christ now or forever be damned preacher, and the listener can be frightened or emoted into walking down the aisle, and show "repentance", but how many out of ten are true Godly repentance ?

That would matter about as much as how many infants baptized by the Catholic and Reform church were truly saved, wouldn't it? Surely you are NOT saying that NONE of those who "walk the aisle" are saved, are you?

The fact is that emotions -- and intellect and will -- ARE involved in true repentance, pinoy. Together that is called the "filling of the Holy Spirit" whereby men and women respond directly to the Holy Spirit.

...but timely salvation, in which he obeys the gospel message, joins a gospel church, and lives a life separate unto God,...

This is really what Calvinism is about, isn't it -- join the church and works that "prove" election? If we can't make our own decisions, this response is all the hope we are left with, no? It's about time someone was brave enough to admit this!

skypair

 

[skypair]

pinoy

The Bible therefore is an instruction book for God's already redeemed people on how to live in this fallen world while passing through it, looking forward to that time set by God when we all shall be home with Him where we belong.

Do you not see that if this is all that the Bible was, it would be a "sanctification book" and not a salvation book? That the gospel would be superfluous in that context?

skypair

 

[HankD]

One big problem - Paul said that when we were dead God made us alive, which (he says) proves that it is by grace that we are saved, since our faith is a response to regeneration (which is "being made alive"). You've got some dead men hearing, agreeing, believing and surrendering, to which God responds by saving them, and other dead men remaining dead because they choose to. As Paul might say, "where's the grace?"

John 5:25Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.​

It doesn't say "they that are alive shall hear", so in the case of this passage, Jesus clearly says that the dead shall indeed hear and the ones who hear shall live.​

The grace I suppose is in that He gives the dead the ability to hear.​

The Calvinist (I assume) would say only the elect among "the dead" are given this ability while the Arminian would say (I assume) that all the dead get the ability and only those who respond positively will live.

The John passage implies that all "the dead" get the ability since it clearly states "and they that hear shall live".

In any case I wanted to point out this passage in John to answer the emboldened statement in your response above.​

HankD

 

[HankD]

Pinoy asked someone concerning the OT saints and their regeneration (which some say didn't happen until after Jesus resurrection) and I would like to point out that when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus concerning being "born again" He marveled that Nicodemus being a master in Israel did not know whereof He spoke.

We also have the following passage:

Galatians 4:

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

HankD​

 

[skypair]

Pinoy asked someone concerning the OT saints and their regeneration (which some say didn't happen until after Jesus resurrection) and I would like to point out that when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus concerning being "born again" He marveled that Nicodemus being a master in Israel did not know whereof He spoke.

This is true, Hank. He marvelled in that Nicodemus didn't equate being born again with Israel's resurrection into Messiah's kingdom -- which Jer 31:33 pointed to "after those days."

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

Do you not see that if this is all that the Bible was, it would be a "sanctification book" and not a salvation book? That the gospel would be superfluous in that context?

skypair

Superflous ? Wherever did I demean the gospel ?
I will only sound that way to those who wants to make the gospel more than what Christ intended it to be.
The gospel has no more power to save the elect child of God than an attorney has the power to make rich someone whose unknown uncle left her millions of dollars.
Both are simply bearers of good news of an event that has already happened.
However, do you deny that the believer has an obligation to his Savior to obey His precepts ?

 

[Helen]

This has wandered a bit off course, but that's not unusual for BB!

A couple of points. I was asked if being spiritually separated from God meant also being unable to respond, or actually I was told that it did. That cannot be true, for God invites the spiritually separated to 'come, let us reason together' in Isaiah 1. Jesus invited those who are heavy-laden -- ALL those who are heavy-laden -- to come to Him. The invitations are many throughout the Bible. That would be pure nonsense if the person separated from God were unable to respond, with at least a WANT to turn to God. He may not be able to do it on his own, but he can at least freely WANT it. And it is that person the Father will draw to the Son, who will refuse none. We may be incapable of doing much of anything on our own, but the one gift we have been given is the freedom to want something. And if the truth is what we want, the Father will draw us to Him. So yes, a spiritually dead person can definitely respond. Not act, perhaps, but certainly respond with a want, a desire.

The other point I would make is to mention that in Revelation Christ is named as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. This means that His death was efficaceous from the time of Adam and Eve, whether or not acted out in time. Before it was acted out in time, He was the Promise of God. After, He was the Fulfilled Promise, known as Jesus the Christ. One could believe on Him either way and be saved. That is what Hebrews 11 is telling us. However it appears that it was only after the Resurrection that the Holy Spirit would actually indwell a believer, so that appears to be the major change. But even Job wrote "I KNOW my Redeemer lives...." -- so there was no doubt in the ancient world about the reality of God's Promise or that it meant redemption. And salvation is by grace through faith.

 

[whatever]

Hi Helen,

Your first point hinges on whether a command implies the ability to perfom the command, and you assume that it does. Could you prove that it does?

I agree with the gist of your second point, although I would probably say things differently than you do.

 

[Helen]

Not too hard, whatever. Even the unredeemed can obey at least some of the Ten Commandments, and do....

God is not a sadistic God. He does not command what we cannot possibly do and then condemn us for not doing it!

If we at least WANT to obey, He does make it possible. It is the WANT that is the key thing, however. And that is always possible.

 

[amity]

Not too hard, whatever. Even the unredeemed can obey at least some of the Ten Commandments, and do....

God is not a sadistic God. He does not command what we cannot possibly do and then condemn us for not doing it!

If we at least WANT to obey, He does make it possible. It is the WANT that is the key thing, however. And that is always possible.

I dunno about that, Helen. The entire Old Testament is about Laws that the New Testament says that man was by nature unable to keep. That does not make God sadistic, I think we would all agree. It just makes man depraved.

If I may ask a broader question, does this theology have a name? I just want to do some outside research to learn more.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I think the Ten Commandments, in particular, and the entire Law, in general, was given by God to be exactly what Paul said it is: A schoolmaster.

God was not being sadistic.
He gave these commandments precisely to show us that if we want to be accepted by Him, then we ought to fulfill these not only in letter but in spirit.
And none, but Christ, is able to do that, among created mankind.
Therefore, God was simply illustrating our own inabilities to us.

 

[Helen]

amity, pinoy, I wrote "SOME of the Ten Commandments!" Not everyone murders. Some non-Christians actually respect and honor their parents! etc.

The name for this 'theology', amity, is biblical Christianity.

Of course no one can fulfill the law, only Christ can. But all of us were able to obey parts of it on our own even before salvation. However, as we are reminded in the NT, breaking one part of the law means you break it all.

It's like a pane of glass in that way. A little hole near the top may be small, but it destroys the pane of glass anyway.

Yes, the law is to show us what sin is. It defines sin. But not everyone commits every sin, at least to the best of my knowledge. In fact, I think we have all seen some unsaved people who behave much better and with better morals that some of those who claim to be Christians! They TRY to obey the law, since they are figuring that their works are all they have.

 

[amity]

Of course no one can fulfill the law, only Christ can. But all of us were able to obey parts of it on our own even before salvation. However, as we are reminded in the NT, breaking one part of the law means you break it all.

It's like a pane of glass in that way. A little hole near the top may be small, but it destroys the pane of glass anyway. .

I think you are onto the doctrine of total depravity, Helen. Yes, of course even the depraved do do good things. Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

The name for this 'theology', amity, is biblical Christianity.

Oh, please don't answer me that way. The implications of that statement are very hurtful.

Lately I have been hearing a lot of the idea that we do have the ability to come to Christ and I am not sure what theology it is out of (Pelagianism?), or what the moniker of that doctrine is. It is certainly not Arminian. My question is very serious, I am not being sarcastic.