• 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!

Do Sinners go to hell due to rejection of Christ/Or Their Sin Natures?

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
I would say that it would also apply spiritually. However in context, it is speaking physically.

How we are tempted.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.
(James 1:13-15 ESV)

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
(1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV)

In other words, I would disagree with that point.

Ok, so when a lost man is confronted with the gospel appeal, "Be reconciled to God." He is faced with the temptation to continue in his own rebellion or in faith submit, humble himself, and repent.

Do you believe God gives that non-elect reprobate all the grace needed to resist that temptation or not? Or do you think those passages and thus the point being made is only related to the saved/elect?
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
JesusFan, You need to work on using the quote feature so as not to put all of your responses into one quote box. Those responding can't tell who is saying what. I missed these replies the first time because I just looked at your words outside the quote box. I've edited it for you, but you need to learn how to use that feature. It just takes a little practice...

Nope, we sin because we are sinners by nature, and the Lord has imputed to us the Fall that Adam brought to pass...
Right, so "God withheld the grace needed to overcome their fallen nature," which is what was stated. How is that not the same?

I do not believe in double predestination, it seems that you have more of a "hyper-Cal" in mind here...
But, who decided the consequence of Adam's sin being that all men would be born unable to willing believe God's appeal to be reconciled? God did, right? So, how is that not what God predetermined for all those he chose to leave in their fallen predetermined condition then?

Where does God get the glory here though? IF jesus can be resisted and rejected by whosoever wills...
How can God be sure that His blood actually DID purchase back a group of people unless He causes it to pass?
He does "cause" it to pass, just not irresistibly so. Does a gift have to be effectually applied for the giver to receive the glory for giving the gift?
 

Alive in Christ

New Member
Iconoclast....

The writer said....

My objections to Calvinism are not based upon any flaw that I see in their logic, but with the Biblical basis used to develop their conclusions,

And you said...

{Lets see if he makes a biblical case....or...an emotional one}

It turns out to be a very biblical one.


The writer...

and their willingness to dismiss passages that seem to be too difficult to reconcile to their system.

You...

{ This is not true. Just search monergism .com or any solid reformed site,and they will be more than willing to look at any verse...so this writer is starting to look suspect here!}


In truth, the writer is correct. I have seen and heard them do that very thing many times.On here and other boards.

Writer...

The approach to arguing for Calvinism has been almost as predictable and consistent as their theological system. If one challenges one of the five points of Calvinism, and they are unable to convince someone of the validity of that point by using Scripture, then they appeal to the theological point above or below the one they are arguing for as a "proof" of the logic of their conclusions.

You...

{Well....does not look like he is trying to look to make a scriptural case, he has indicated he sees a logical consistency in the teaching, so why does he quibble with the cal showing how the points are inter-related

Because its nothing more than circular reasoning. Simply trying tp avoid the "problem", rather than try and defend the undefendable.

but it is early,in this article. maybe he will bring the scriptural case soon

He is doing wonderfully so far.

Writer...

"If you are predestined, you cannot lose your salvation."

You...

{here he jumps in with a random statement and starts to mis-represent the teaching ...right away! what a surprise!

That "random statement" describes the circular reasoning that Calvinists many times employ in thier attemt to avoid a problem in their theology.

In truth, he is not misrepreseting Calivinsm.

He is exposing its errors.

You...

What does he say;


Writer

If you are predestined......

You...

The teaching is....WHOM ..he did....FOREKNOW...He also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of the Son.
The Elective decree of God is first- whom God did foreknow,whom God set His love upon, These ones He did predestinate! to be conformed... if the writer had any real understanding of this fact alone,this issue of someone "losing" salvation would not even be an issue}

Of course you have to respond that way. The writer is exposing problems with something hold dear. I understand. And he clearly does indeed have a very good understanding of Calvinism and its problems.

You...

{If you go back over most of the cal/arm threads...you will see all the calvinists constantly saying.....you have a wrong view of foreknowledge, over and over again.....that is because it is almost always misunderstood.}

I realise that saying that makes calivists feel better, but in truth these ones who are exposing the errors of Calvinism no dought have a very comprehenive understanding og Calvinism. They "know thier stuff". :thumbs:



Writer...

While this method is extremely effective in convincing the simple thinker, it is nothing more than the use of circular logic, i.e., using part of a theory as proof of that theory.

You...

{This is useless argumentation,distracting from the real issues on the table,still waiting for his scriptural case}

Nonsense. He is exposing flaws and errors in how Calvinists defend Calvinism.

Writer...

One thing that I find most amazing is the way that Calvinism approaches some difficulties.

You...

{ If he read good material , he would have answers to these objections already}

Ahh, He needs to read *good* material. ha ha. I have no dought this writer has read "good" material. You are "grasping at straws, brother.


For example: If God limits the atonement to the elect,

{The Atonement, is definate,and particular, for a multitude given to Christ}

and those that are "chosen" are not selected by anything within themselves, for God is no respecter of persons;
This is correct

And all of the problems he describes regarding Calvinism are accurate.

AiC
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
If it was perfect, then why did he sin? Jesus' nature was perfect, I think Adams was mutable, right? I mean, that is what you seem to say later when you write...

Jesus had/has a perfect sinless human nature, and he stayed kept by the power of God... he did what we are told to do, by being in will of His father always, and was empowered by Holy Spirit, he kept on being "refilled" daily...

Adam and satan fell, due to the 'free will" choice God permitted them to have...
He knew both would fall, but allowed them to decide that for themselves...

NOt causing their sin,but permitted them to go their own way...

He already had plan of messiah ready to go once fall occured, with hell reserved for satan and His minions...

I agree with all this, but what about the fall leads you to believe that what Adam did would cause all mankind to become unable to respond to a message of God sent to the entire world appealing for every creature to be reconciled to him?

In Adam, God judged all people after Him to be counted/imputed as being part of the Fall...
Adam was seen as head of Human familiy, so all would be judged in Adam as "guilty" before the Lord, and receive sin nature from fall...

In Adam, all of us are as he was, spiritual dead, broken relationship with God, God provided messiah as means to reconcile us back together...



It just seems backwards to suggest that we can't respond to a message to be reconciled because we are enemies. Isn't that kind of the point of the appeal to be reconciled? It's like a doctor saying, "Hey I got the cure to cancer but you can't receive it because you are too cancerous." It just appears to me that Calvs take passages which speak of our predicament PRE Cross/gospel/Holy Spirit coming and apply it to our predicament post all these divine provisions. Make sense?

Think that cals tend to see in Bible that God has a Covenant people in OT, Isreal, that were TOTALLY chosen by Him, act of Love and Grace....
NT, God calls out His Church in like fashion, not because Any of us deserve to be saved, but due to His love...

Think we just tend to see God as being 'right" in whatever he decides to do with us, as we ALL deserve to stay fallen and hell bound...

While its true I do have a greater "beef" with "high/hyper" Calvinistic viewpoints because they do more injustice to the text than your view; that doesn't translate into my views not being supported by scripture. I've supplied countless texts and explanations supporting my views as have many scholars before me. If there is a specific point you'd like to discuss, please point it out, but generalized sweeping arguments such as this really don't help move the discussion along.

Just was saying to you that it appears to me that many of your points seem more address to those among us cals who hold to "higher" calvinism...

And I have seen ALL of your postings, and just want to let you know you make good points, just that we see things from a different perspective!

Did you understand the two views I presented and how the Cal view makes God ultimately culpable for man's failing, while the Arm view gives credit to God for the positive response while still making man fully culpable for his own independent failing?

Well...
ALL of us are responsibile to God for our sins, and that NONE of us will be able to give to God good reason why we do not deserve our punishment for our sins...

God saw us, and decided to send forth His Son to be propiation for those he freely chose to love and redemn....

Cals keep man full culpable for his sins, as all of us are sinners who have freely chosen to refuse to come to God, as we love the darkness more than the light...

We see it as God getting ALl the glory as He is One who
sent his Son jesus to die/atone for our sins, allowed/called us out of darknes unto the light, and no one can boast, as it is fully of/from the Lord!
 

Skandelon

<b>Moderator</b>
JesusFan,

I love ya bro, but I'm tired of correcting all the formatting problems. You have to learn to use the simple quote feature instead of putting all your comments in my quote box. It confuses the process and makes replies difficult. When you edit it, I'll come back and respond.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
Agree, main disagreement would be that Arms see it has God providing means for all to potentially be able to respond in faith to Gospel, Cals see it as being only those who have been elected out as able to repond in faith...



I tend to see the Gospel as THE agent chosen by God to save those he has foreknown and elected out in Christ...
faith DOES indded come from hearing, by the word of God, its just that regeneration by the Lord AND saving faith happens to me at same time, so God quickens, person now able to exercise saving fath in Chrst...

Think cals see election on Individual basis by the Lord. Arms more that God gives "enough" grace to save all who wills, Cals say Unless God wills it, you can't will it...

its like left to ourselves, will excercise 'free will" but since depraived/corrupted sin natures, will chose to deny Christ, and stay in darkness


it means that God does love all in the sense he created all of us in his image, and did supply a sacrifice for all, But he loves his Covenant people with "specific" love...

be like I love my friends and , but love my wife and kids even more so, as they are my "blood" family


This is in fact a key difference in the reformed and non-cal view.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
AIC,

When I asked if your writer might make a "scriptural case" for his view, you kept cheering about how the writer was doing that....

When I spoke of a scriptural case....I mean actual scripture passages You know ...chapter and verse. All he offered was shared ignorance and ungodly thought....against all the confessional saints since the reformation.
If I wanted to read someone say, calvinism is wrong, calvinism is bad, I could just check on any of r.snows posts:laugh:

Sorry friend.....keep trying and looking , you might be surprised at what you discover.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It can't be primary. Sin is the reason why anybody would ever go to hell. Without Christ, all would go to hell. That's the primary reason.

My example I gave earlier.

If I have a ticket to pay, the primary reason is because of what I did wrong. If you offer to pay my ticket and I refuse, that doesn't negate the fact that the reason I have to pay the ticket is because I did something wrong.

Yes. That's the difference. It just doesn't negate the primary reason hell is even in the picture.

JBH,
Several good posts...on the sin issue. In Jn 8...Jesus teaching is clear that he did not die for sin in general....but sins [plural]...the unsaved will dies in their sins[plural]...unreconciled..
24I said, therefore, to you, that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye may not believe that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.'
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
JesusFan, You need to work on using the quote feature so as not to put all of your responses into one quote box. Those responding can't tell who is saying what. I missed these replies the first time because I just looked at your words outside the quote box. I've edited it for you, but you need to learn how to use that feature. It just takes a little practice...

.Thanks!

Right, so "God withheld the grace needed to overcome their fallen nature," which is what was stated. How is that not the same?

Adam HAD enough "grace" to withstand temptation to sin, as our Lord showed thast one who has a sinless human nature CAN resist and not yield to sin IF abiding in power of God... Adam could have chosen to obey God, decided not to...

But, who decided the consequence of Adam's sin being that all men would be born unable to willing believe God's appeal to be reconciled? God did, right? So, how is that not what God predetermined for all those he chose to leave in their fallen predetermined condition then?

Ultimate blame for our problem goes back to satan first, father of lies, and to our father Adam, who wilfully chose to rebel against God...

So how can we blame God for what he did not do to us, we brought it on ourselves / And can man really bring a charge against god, isnt that very presumptous?


He does "cause" it to pass, just not irresistibly so. Does a gift have to be effectually applied for the giver to receive the glory for giving the gift?

its just that IF God has to rely upon us to respond in full to the Cross...
Our natures will not like that idea, as we tend to stay in dark, and want to "save ourselves" as our pride does not allow us to agrre that god alone can save!

Think we both agree that God is NOT agent/cause of sin and evil , that jesus died as atonement for sins of whole world, that man must respond in faith to Gospel of Christ...

We just disagree on IF man can respond by his "own "..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
While I appreciate the western analogy... I really do....very entertaining; I really was looking for any scholar who defines "fatalism" in the way that you have here.

This 25$ book is available as afree download....here
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/lectures-on-calvinism-and-arminianism/1210407




There are many...here are a few......many are written ,but few are chosen
 

jbh28

Active Member
Ok, so when a lost man is confronted with the gospel appeal, "Be reconciled to God." He is faced with the temptation to continue in his own rebellion or in faith submit, humble himself, and repent.

Do you believe God gives that non-elect reprobate all the grace needed to resist that temptation or not? Or do you think those passages and thus the point being made is only related to the saved/elect?

I'm sorry, I thought you were referring to those that are saved.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
AIC,

When I asked if your writer might make a "scriptural case" for his view, you kept cheering about how the writer was doing that....

When I spoke of a scriptural case....I mean actual scripture passages You know ...chapter and verse. All he offered was shared ignorance and ungodly thought....against all the confessional saints since the reformation.
If I wanted to read someone say, calvinism is wrong, calvinism is bad, I could just check on any of r.snows posts:laugh:

Sorry friend.....keep trying and looking , you might be surprised at what you discover.

Iconoclast,

Are you speaking here of the "Critique of Calvinism by a former Calvinist" found here.
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html#Unconditional
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Last edited by a moderator:

Alive in Christ

New Member
Iconoclast....

Regarding the material I posted, you said...

When I asked if your writer might make a "scriptural case" for his view, you kept cheering about how the writer was doing that....

When I spoke of a scriptural case....I mean actual scripture passages You know ...chapter and verse

(((what?)))

Iconoclast, the topic in the material I posted could be titled...

How Calvinists evade difficult passages of scripture, rather then deal with them.

How could there be scripture that adresses Calvinists, when there were no calvinists back then?

You are *dancing* again Iconoclast. Making Fred Astair proud again. :thumbs:

In addition, you are actually confirming the point of the material I posted, which was primarily the tendance of Calvinists to....

Dance, and evade problematic issues in thier theology!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alive in Christ

New Member
Iconoclast....

OK. You want scripture? Here is plenty of scripture...

Today there are those of a Reformed persuasion who teach that regeneration precedes faith. They would say that a person must be born again before he believes. They would say that a person must have God’s LIFE before he can believe on Christ. C. D. Cole states it this way: "The Calvinist says that life must precede faith, and is logically the cause of faith. Faith did not cause the new birth, the new birth caused faith." [From a tract entitled Which Comes First In Conversion--Life or Faith? By C.D.Cole, published by Chapel Library, Venice, Florida].

Why do such men teach this? "Extreme Calvinists put the new birth before faith, since they believe that spiritually dead humans cannot exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again before they can believe" [C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, p. 39]. The doctrine of man’s total depravity has been carried to the extreme by some Calvinists resulting in a wrong understanding of man’s inability. They believe that the sinner is dead in sin and therefore he is like a corpse, totally unable to do anything. They believe he first must be regenerated and have life and only then will he be able to believe the gospel. But the Scripture teaches that he must believe in order to have life (John 20:31).

The Philippian jailer once asked, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). If Paul had been an extreme Calvinist he might have said, "You can do nothing to be saved, absolutely nothing. You are dead in sin and a dead man can do nothing. If God doesn't regenerate you, then you are doomed." How different was the answer Paul gave: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:31).

The common Calvinist argument is this: "The depraved sinner is said to be DEAD (Eph. 2:1). Since he is dead it is impossible for him to believe. A dead corpse cannot do anything." But Paul in Ephesians 2:1 is speaking of spiritual death and to compare spiritual death with physical death is problematic. A person who is physically dead cannot speak, cannot breathe, cannot laugh, cannot walk, etc. But a spiritually dead person can do all of these things. It's wrong to say that a spiritually dead person can do nothing. Even the Calvinist would have to admit that he can reject Jesus Christ, he can pray, he can read the Bible, he can sin and he can even do good works in a vain effort to try to earn his salvation. He has ability to do all of these things.

Wherein lies the inability of the depraved sinner? He can't because he won't. An example of this is found in Genesis 37:4--Joseph's brothers "could not speak peaceably unto him." They were unable to speak peaceably unto him. What kind of inability was this? Were their mouths being held shut by some outside force so that they could not talk? Were they carried hundreds of miles away from Joseph so that it was impossible to talk to him? No, they could not because they would not. They did not want to speak to him in this way because of the depravity of their sinful and jealous hearts. Why can't men believe? Why don't men come to Christ? "And ye will not come to Me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Or literally, "And ye are not willing to come unto Me that ye may have life" (William Kelly's translation). Their inability to come to Christ was due to their refusal to come to Him that they might have life. [Important note: The extreme Calvinist, if consistent with his belief, should re-write John 5:40 in this way: "And ye will not have life that ye may come to me." This is because Calvinism teaches that a dead sinner cannot come to Christ or believe in Him unless he first has life]. For a more detailed study on the willingness of God to save depraved men, see God's Willingness and Man's Unwillingness.

We agree that no one can believe on Christ apart from God’s great and gracious working in the heart which involves both enabling and enlightenment (John 6:44,65; Matthew 11:27; 16:16-17; Acts 16:14). It is interesting that God sometimes commands a person to do what in himself he is totally unable to do. One example involves the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1-5). Christ gave him the command, "Stretch forth thine hand!" How could he do this if he suffered from paralysis? Christ commanded, the man obeyed and God enabled! Christ enabled him to do the impossible! So also the sinner is commanded to believe on Christ. If the sinner fails to obey this command then he is guilty of disobeying the gospel (2 Thess. 1:8). He will never be able to use this excuse: "Lord, the reason I did not believe on Christ was because I was totally depraved and unable to believe." No, if God commands, then man is responsible to obey. "But now [God] commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30).

Does regeneration precede faith? Actually they both take place in the same moment of time. The moment a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he is regenerated (born again). The moment he receives Christ by faith he also receives God’s gift of eternal life. It all happens in an instant of time. Yet logically as we think about this great transaction, we must put an order to it. Does the Bible indicate that a person must be regenerated so that he can believe or does the Bible teach that a person must believe in order to be regenerated? Do we need life in order to believe or do we need to believe in order to have life?

The Bible clearly teaches this: believe and thou shalt live! "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life" (John 6:47). "That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:15). The extreme Calvinist says, "live and thou shalt believe!" Please notice that John 1:12 does not say this: "But as many as have been regenerated, to them gave He the power to believe on His Name, even to those who have become the children of God." Notice also that John 20:31 says, "believing ye might have life." It does not say, "having life ye might believe." In his helpless and hopeless condition the sinner is told to LOOK to the Lord Jesus Christ AND LIVE (John 3:14-16; Numbers 21). [We sing the hymn, Look and Live. The extreme Calvinist should rename the hymn: Live and Look.] The extreme Calvinist teaches that a person must have life in order to believe. The Lord Jesus taught that a person must believe (come to Christ) in order to have life (John 5:40). Remember, to "come to Christ" is synonymous with "believing on Him" (see John 6:35,37,40). Why do people not believe on Christ? Is it because they have not been regenerated or because they refuse to come to Christ by faith (John 5:40; 2 Thess. 2:10,12)?

R. C. Sproul believes that regeneration precedes faith. But in spite of his doctrine, he once wrote the following: "Once Luther grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans, he was reborn" (R. C. Sproul, The Holiness of God, 1993 edition, p. 144). He must have written these words in haste because to be consistent with his theology he should have said it this way: "Once Luther was reborn, he grasped the teaching of Paul in Romans."

If regeneration precedes faith, then this would make faith unnecessary since the person would already be saved. If a person is regenerated, then he is born of God, a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life. If you are a member of God’s family and a possessor of eternal life, then you are already saved. So what need is there for faith?

Charles Spurgeon recognized the folly of saying that the sinner must be regenerated before he can believe:

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].


http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Iconoclast....

OK. You want scripture? Here is plenty of scripture...




http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm

AIC....ok now i will show you the errors posted here;
Why do such men teach this? "Extreme Calvinists put the new birth before faith, since they believe that spiritually dead humans cannot exercise faith and, therefore, need to be born again before they can believe" [C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism, p. 39].


Jesus said:
3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Looks like Jesus taught...unless a man be born again....he cannot see

you are you article disagree with Jesus....dance with this for awhile AIC

Why do such men teach this? "Extreme Calvinists put the new birth before faith

they teach it because Jesus taught it.
. They believe he first must be regenerated and have life and only then will he be able to believe the gospel. But the Scripture teaches that he must believe in order to have life (John 20:31).
This verse does not teach what you say....of course if a man believes he
will have life! Believing is an ongoing thing, believe and continue to believe.
If he is a non believer he cannot have life. the verse does not say..in order to.
in jn3:16 your whosoever...is really...everyone believing
Regeneration allows a saving belief.
The Philippian jailer once asked, "What must I do to be saved?" (Acts 16:30). If Paul had been an extreme Calvinist he might have said, "You can do nothing to be saved, absolutely nothing. You are dead in sin and a dead man can do nothing. If God doesn't regenerate you, then you are doomed
paul actually taught all these truths that your man ridicules
the man could do nothing to be saved! he could only believe in what jesus did to be saved.....paul did not tell him to raise his hand, sign a card, or walk the aisle either....just believe
"The depraved sinner is said to be DEAD (Eph. 2:1).

He is!
We agree that no one can believe on Christ apart from God’s great and gracious working in the heart which involves both enabling and enlightenment (John 6:44,65; Matthew 11:27; 16:16-17; Acts 16:14). It is interesting that God sometimes commands a person to do what in himself he is totally unable to do. One example involves the man with the withered hand (Mark 3:1-5). Christ gave him the command, "Stretch forth thine hand!" How could he do this if he suffered from paralysis? Christ commanded, the man obeyed and God enabled! Christ enabled him to do the impossible! So also the sinner is commanded to believe on Christ

This whole portion of His quote is correct, because it is the calvinist position, too bad your writer did not understand what he himself posted . If he understood what he posted here, he would see he contradicts his whole article,and actually agrees with the teaching of calvinism!:thumbsup:

Why do people not believe on Christ? Is it because they have not been regenerated or because they refuse to come to Christ by faith (John 5:40; 2 Thess. 2:10,12)?
because they are spiritually dead,and unable without being enabled by God to do so...as he himself said he agreed with two paragraphs earlier:laugh::laugh:

Charles Spurgeon recognized the folly of saying that the sinner must be regenerated before he can believe:

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. Am I only to preach faith to those who have it? Absurd, indeed! Is not this waiting till the man is cured and then bringing him the medicine? This is preaching Christ to the righteous and not to sinners." [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith].

He wants to quote Spurgeon, but he does not understand the quote...no wonder he cannot understand the verses ,lol Spurgeon is speaking of persons who are already regenerated,who are already saved,lol AIC you are killing me here.....re-read the quote....

But thank you for trying....the article did have scripture in it ,which is good
too bad the author did not understand the verses however.
 

Winman

Active Member
If a person is regenerated for even one millisecond before he trusts Christ, then you have a born again sinner!

We are justified by faith. Until you place faith in Christ you are dead in your sins. But according to your doctrine a person can be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment! In fact, some Calvinists (Sproul for one) teach a person can be regenerated for years before they actually place faith in Christ. This is impossible.

You cannot have spiritual life until AFTER you believe, there are dozens of scriptures that support this, there is not one single verse in all of scripture that supports your view.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Do sinners go to Hell - actually Hades and then Gehenna - why not present what the Bible actually says.

due to rejection of Christ- no but rejection adds to their punishment in Hades/Gehenna.

or their sin nature? - yes if they die before the age of accountablity. John 3:18 says we are condemned by our unbelief. Everyone who does not believe in the name of Christ goes to Hades/Gehenna. We simply add to our punishment when we volitionally sin, and especially if we reject Christ.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents in a thread of over 16 pages, asking a very basic question.
 

jbh28

Active Member
Do sinners go to Hell - actually Hades and then Gehenna - why not present what the Bible actually says.

due to rejection of Christ- no but rejection adds to their punishment in Hades/Gehenna.

or their sin nature? - yes if they die before the age of accountablity. John 3:18 says we are condemned by our unbelief. Everyone who does not believe in the name of Christ goes to Hades/Gehenna. We simply add to our punishment when we volitionally sin, and especially if we reject Christ.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents in a thread of over 16 pages, asking a very basic question.

What do you mean by adds to their punishment? won't all people in hell be rejectors of Christ?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think there is a difference between "unbelief" which includes both those who never were exposed to the gospel, such as babies and infants, and those who heard and understood the gospel but did not fully trust in Christ. I think the punishment in Hades/Gehenna will vary with the individual, and be "more tolerable" for those who did not pile up as much wrath.
 
Top