For By Grace Are Ye Saved

[Winman]

But, if your understanding of libertarian free will is true, then the scriptures really do not have power. They are ineffective of themselves. Even the Holy Spirit is ineffective of Himself. If the words are spirit and life, and if this Spirit quickens, then the Holy Spirit has the power through His Word to change people effectually according as He desires. According to your thinking, man has this ultimate power and the word and the spirit do not really have true effectual power and in of themselves.

The scriptures have power, but they are only effectual to those who take hold of them through faith. And this is what the scriptures say.

Heb 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

1 Thess 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Notice that last verse says the word of God "effectually worketh also in you that believe".

The gospel has the power to save you, but you must believe it for it to become effectual.

Let's say you were lost at sea. A search helicopter finds you, and lowers a cable down to save you. But you do not trust the small cable and harness, they do not look strong enough and secure enough in your opinion and you are afraid to wrap it around yourself so you can be pulled up to safety. But the cable and harness are indeed safe and can support much weight. The helicopter with the cable and harness have the power to save you, but because of your lack of faith, they are rendered ineffectual.

Now, that's a poor analogy, but you get the idea. You have to actually place your trust in the gospel for it to save you, just as you would have to trust the cable and harness and wrap them around you, trusting that you could be safely pulled up.

Calvinists believe man can play no part in his own salvation, but that is not what the scriptures show. Look what Peter said to the Jews on the day of Pentacost.

Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Now, this was not an error on Peter's part. The Holy Spirit had just fallen on him and the other apostles, cloven tongues of fire appeared on them, and the people heard them speak in many tongues. Peter was absolutely full of the Holy Spirit when he said this. These are the very words of God that Peter is speaking here, and he is exhorting them to repent of unbelief and trust on Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And notice these hearers were not to receive the Spirit until after they repented.

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Notice first they heard the word of God from Peter "Now when they heard this". They were not regenerated by Peter's word, they were convicted "they were pricked in their heart". Being deeply convicted and realizing they were guilty of crucifying the Lord and in great peril, they called out to Peter and the other apostles for help "Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

Now Peter tells them to repent. Repent means to change direction. What were they to change direction from? Peter had just preached to them and explained that Jesus who had been crucified for the charge of blasphemy was indeed the promised Christ the Jews had been waiting for.

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

These people knew of Jesus, but they had thought him a blasphemer.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

So, this is what they had to repent or turn from. They had thought Jesus a blasphemer, now they needed to realize Jesus was the promised Christ and place their trust in him. And Peter told them if they would trust in Christ and be baptized in his name, that then they would receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

And notice that this promise was to them, their children and to all that are afar off. Everyone is called, no one is excluded from this promise.

But not everyone who is called believes, and therefore is not chosen.

Matt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

In the parable of the wedding in Matthew 22, many men were called who refused to come.

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.

God destroyed these evil men who were called, but would not obey and come to the wedding.

Matt 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

This was the Jews and speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. Jesus first came to the Jews, but the vast majority did not believe on him.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Back to the wedding, one man came, but did not have a wedding garment on. This garment represents the righteousness imputed to those who believe on Christ.

Matt 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Then Jesus says in vs. 14, "Many are called, but few are chosen"

Now, this explains who are the chosen, who are the elect. The evil men who refused to come to the wedding were not the elect, God destroyed them. And this man who came without a wedding garment was not the elect, he was cast out. Only those who obeyed God's call and came to the wedding with the proper wedding garment where the chosen or elect.

But the other people could have come if they so chose. God did not keep them from coming, they refused to come of their own choice. And you had to come with the wedding garment, that is Christ's righteousness to be accepted.

A man has a responsibility in salvation, we are to obey God's call and come with the wedding garment on. Action is required on our part.

James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

So, if a man is cast out, it is his own fault, not God's.

 

[TomVols]

So, if a man is cast out, it is his own fault, not God's.

I can't think of a single Calvinist who'd disagree with that statement.

 

[The Archangel]

Calvinists believe man can play no part in his own salvation...

This is a ridiculous statement. It is false.

Most of the Calvinists I know (and there are legion) affirm that man must respond to God in repentance and faith.

To say otherwise as you have--especially after you have been informed about this on many occasions--is to intentionally speak false about us. This is not helpful, this is not the behavior we'd expect from a Christian brother, and this is bordering on slander.

If you are going to continue your attacks on reformed theology (which your are certainly free and welcome to do), at least do us the courtesy of stating our position accurately.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

This is a ridiculous statement. It is false.

Most of the Calvinists I know (and there are legion) affirm that man must respond to God in repentance and faith.

To say otherwise as you have--especially after you have been informed about this on many occasions--is to intentionally speak false about us. This is not helpful, this is not the behavior we'd expect from a Christian brother, and this is bordering on slander.

If you are going to continue your attacks on reformed theology (which your are certainly free and welcome to do), at least do us the courtesy of stating our position accurately.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I have read from some here just that (oldregular, rippon come to mind)
So man does play a part in salvation? That goes against what many calvinists state. I agree with you, btw.

 

[Winman]

This is a ridiculous statement. It is false.

Most of the Calvinists I know (and there are legion) affirm that man must respond to God in repentance and faith.

To say otherwise as you have--especially after you have been informed about this on many occasions--is to intentionally speak false about us. This is not helpful, this is not the behavior we'd expect from a Christian brother, and this is bordering on slander.

If you are going to continue your attacks on reformed theology (which your are certainly free and welcome to do), at least do us the courtesy of stating our position accurately.

Blessings,

The Archangel

I have been debating with you Calvinists for some time now. One thing I understand is that you believe man is Totally Depraved and cannot respond to the gospel in repentance and faith unless God regenerates him first.

If God regenerates a man to have the ability to believe and repent, then that is not the man responding at all. It is no different than this computer, it is designed and programmed to obey my commands. I am typing these words you read here, not the computer.

And this is what you have reduced man to. He has no ability to respond to the gospel whatsoever unless God regenerates him first. I have shown with numerous scriptures this is not the case. These men Peter spoke to were not regenerated when they called out to the apostles and said, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?". They understood Peter's preaching and were convicted. And we know they were not regenerated, because Peter told them they needed to repent. And we know they did not have the Holy Spirit because Peter told them they would receive the Holy Spirit if they did repent.

And Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit exhorted these men to "Save yourselves".

Go back to the curse in the garden when Adam and Eve sinned. Show me where man lost the ability to hear and believe God's words.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Nowhere in this curse does God say he curses man so that he has a fallen nature that cannot hear and believe God's word. In fact, we know that is not true because after Adam and Eve sinned they heard and responded to God's call.

Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

The scriptures clearly contradict Calvinism here. Adam and Eve both clearly heard God's word and responded to God by answering him. This was after they had eaten the forbidden fruit and sinned.

So, this teaching that unsaved man does not have the ability to hear God's word and respond to it is utterly unscriptural.

 

[Winman]

If God did curse man's nature in the garden of Eden, then God did not mention it whatsoever. I do not usually quote men, but George Burnap wrote of this:

"If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!" 6

6 George W. Burnap, Lectures on the Doctrines of Christianity (Boston and Cambridge: James Munroe and Co.), 1848, pp. 131-132.

George Burnap was a Unitarian which I do not believe in, but I agree with his statement here.

The fact is, the doctrine of Total Depravity is a man-made doctrine. Nowhere in scripture will you find where God has forever cursed man's nature so that man is unable to hear and respond to God's word.

 

[OldRegular]

The gospel has the power to save you, but you must believe it for it to become effectual.

Let's say you were lost at sea. A search helicopter finds you, and lowers a cable down to save you. But you do not trust the small cable and harness, they do not look strong enough and secure enough in your opinion and you are afraid to wrap it around yourself so you can be pulled up to safety. But the cable and harness are indeed safe and can support much weight. The helicopter with the cable and harness have the power to save you, but because of your lack of faith, they are rendered ineffectual.

Now, that's a poor analogy, but you get the idea. You have to actually place your trust in the gospel for it to save you, just as you would have to trust the cable and harness and wrap them around you, trusting that you could be safely pulled up.

Isn't you example above, if applied to the sinners reception of the Gospel, proof of of what John Dagg said in a quotation I presented earlier. Man of his own so-called free will simply will not respond to the Gospel call.

"John Dagg in his Manual of Theology [page 322] says it best, as follows:

Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible."

 

[The Archangel]

I have been debating with you Calvinists for some time now.

"You Calvinists?" "You Calvinists??" Are you kidding me? This is not the language of debate, this is the language of an adversary. What can you possibly hope to accomplish by using this language?

By using this language of belittlement, you are not discussing the issue and you are attacking your opponent. Which, I might add, is, in effect, belittling yourself.

Many people who do not agree with me are still able to discuss the issues of theology and Calvinism in a great debate--which sticks to the issues and avoids these kindergartenesque liar-liar-pants-on-fire tactics.

Allan is one such example...we disagree on many things but our debates are just that debates, not wars. We enjoy discussing our differences and do not feel the need, as you apparently do, to attack those who disagree with you.

And, for the record, you do not debate. Debate is cordial even when heated disagreements are apparent. What you do is this: You try to set up people who disagree with you as punching bags so that you can hit them. Now, I understand that sentiment--I am, after all, human. However, what bothers me and others on this board is that you are doing this to persons who you should be treating as brothers or sisters in Christ.

Regardless of who is correct in the Calvinism v. Arminianism debate, how will you answer to Christ on that last day for what flows from your heart through your fingers at your brothers and sisters?

But, I digress...on to your post:

One thing I understand is that you believe man is Totally Depraved and cannot respond to the gospel in repentance and faith unless God regenerates him first.

This is true, we believe that. However, "Total" Depravity is an unfortunate way to put it. We believe in radical (or as I call it, all-pervasive) depravity. Radical depravity does not mean we are all as bad as we could be it just means that every part of us--the totality of a person--is corrupted by sin.

If God regenerates a man to have the ability to believe and repent, then that is not the man responding at all. It is no different than this computer, it is designed and programmed to obey my commands. I am typing these words you read here, not the computer.

It is absolutely different and your characterization here is not accurate. Do we believe that regeneration must occur? Yes. Do we believe that regeneration will, inevitably, lead to conversion? Yes. But, the regenerated man must respond.

This does not make man a robot; this makes man truly free to choose.

This is a matter of the heart.

In all of your scripture quoting, you never seem to quote the verse about man's heart:

Genesis 6:5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

That doesn't sound good. How can a deceitful heart desire God? How can a heart with "only" and "continually" evil thought desire God? Is desiring God evil, then? May it never be!

The truth is this: The position which you hold to (which is semi-Pelagian at best, and Pelagian at worst) seeks to elevate Mankind to a status above what the scriptures give to him.

And this is what you have reduced man to. He has no ability to respond to the gospel whatsoever unless God regenerates him first.

No. We have not reduced man to this. Scripture has told us man has been reduced to this by the Fall.

So, this teaching that unsaved man does not have the ability to hear God's word and respond to it is utterly unscriptural.

It is absolutely scriptural. Since you don't believe so, explain this to me:

John 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Answer the following questions:

1. What is the meaning of "Born Again?"

2. Why, in Greek, is it in the Passive? (and remember, the passive voice means that the subject, here Nicodemus, must be acted upon by an outside force)

3. Is what Jesus is telling Nicodemus to do even possible for Nicodemus to do? (again, the Passive)

Blessings to you.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

If God did curse man's nature in the garden of Eden, then God did not mention it whatsoever. I do not usually quote men, but George Burnap wrote of this:

George Burnap was a Unitarian which I do not believe in, but I agree with his statement here.

The fact is, the doctrine of Total Depravity is a man-made doctrine. Nowhere in scripture will you find where God has forever cursed man's nature so that man is unable to hear and respond to God's word.

Sure. Quoting non-believing heretics is always the best way to bolster your argument.

It is frightening that you are quoting Unitarians to support your position. If I found I Unitarian agreed with me more than any other orthodox believer, I'd worry and re-think my position.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why would God create a totally depraved being?

 

[OldRegular]

Why would God create a totally depraved being?

God did not create a totally depraved being!

Genesis 1:26-28, 31, KJV
26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
31. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Ecclesiastes 7:29, KJV
29.Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

CBT, I am amazed that you would be able to come up with such a question!

 

[TomVols]

I'm surprised it took this long to come up. It's the classic Arminian red-herring...well, one of them. They have a quiver full of them :smilewinkgrin:

 

[OldRegular]

I'm surprised it took this long to come up. It's the classic Arminian red-herring...well, one of them. They have a quiver full of them :smilewinkgrin:

I guess I am just surprised that a Christian would ask such a question!:BangHead:

 

[The Archangel]

Why would God create a totally depraved being?

Crabtownboy,

I don't think this is a bad question. I think this is a necessary question.

The answer: God did not create a totally depraved being. God created mankind in a state of perfection (probably not as He is perfect...but certainly untainted by anything, especially sin).

It is the fall that brought the depravity into the human race. Since Adam fell, all of his progeny have been 1. held guilty for his sin, 2. radically depraved, and 3. sinners by nature.

So, Christians, along with the entire creation, long for redemption from the curse.

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

 

[TomVols]

Archangel, would innocence be a better term than perfection? Or "guiltless?" That which is perfect cannot become imperfect, can it? When we speak of perfection, it's not that something was imperfect then became perfect. It was perfect from the start. Same is true of the inverse. The imperfect was never perfect because it was incomplete, and in its totality became imperfect. Thus, Adam and Eve could not have been perfect. They would have been equal to God, which clearly they were not. Satan tempted them to become like God (Gen 3:5). This temptation would not be true if they were already perfect.
Thanks!

 

[The Archangel]

Archangel, would innocence be a better term than perfection? Or "guiltless?" That which is perfect cannot become imperfect, can it? When we speak of perfection, it's not that something was imperfect then became perfect. It was perfect from the start. Same is true of the inverse. The imperfect was never perfect because it was incomplete, and in its totality became imperfect. Thus, Adam and Eve could not have been perfect. They would have been equal to God, which clearly they were not. Satan tempted them to become like God (Gen 3:5). This temptation would not be true if they were already perfect.
Thanks!

Tom,

You know...that's a great way to put it. Innocence, I think, would be the best way to describe it.

I'm not sure if I agree with your statement that perfect cannot become imperfect. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I might say it differently. In essence, though, I think you're right. Certainly Adam and Eve were not equal to God in any sort of "perfection."

Were they guiltless and innocent before the fall? Yes. And I think this is the best way to describe the pre-fall state--innocence.

Thank you and many blessings,

The Archangel

 

[OldRegular]

Perhaps Thomas Boston in Human Nature in Its Fourfold States, page 37ff, says it best:

“God hath made man upright. By ‘man’ here we are to understand our first parents; the archetypal pair, the root of mankind, the compendized world, and the fountain from which all generations have streamed; as may appear by comparing Genesis 5:1,2, In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him: male and female created He them; and blessed them and called their name Adam. ..... In this sense, man was made right [agreeable to the nature of God, whose work is perfect], without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption, in his body or soul. He was made ‘up-right,’ that is, straight with the will and law of God, without any irregularity in his soul. By the set it got in its creation, it directly pointed towards God, as his chief end; which straight inclination was represented, as in an emblem, by the erect figure of his body, a figure that no other living creature partakes of. What David was in a gospel sense, that was he in a legal sense; one ‘according to God's own heart’, altogether righteous, pure, and holy. God made him thus: He did not first make him, and then make him righteous, but in the very making of him, He made him righteous. Original righteousness was created with him; so that in the same moment he was a man, he was a righteous man, morally good; with the same breath that God breathed into him a living soul, He breathed into him a righteous soul.”

 

[Winman]

Isn't you example above, if applied to the sinners reception of the Gospel, proof of of what John Dagg said in a quotation I presented earlier. Man of his own so-called free will simply will not respond to the Gospel call.

"John Dagg in his Manual of Theology [page 322] says it best, as follows:

Every proposed method of salvation that leaves the issue dependent on human volition is defective. It has always been found that men will not come to Christ for life. The Gospel is preached to every creature; but all, with one consent, ask to be excused. The will of man must be changed; and this change the will cannot itself effect. Divine grace must here interpose. Unless God works in the sinner to will and to do, salvation is impossible."

Old Regular, I disagree with Dagg. I do not agree that all unsaved men who hear the gospel asked to be excused as he puts it. It is not true that "it has always been found that man will not come to Christ for life". That is false and there are many examples in scripture that contradict Dagg's doctrine. When Jesus preached, great crowds followed him, anxious to hear his words. The unsaved came to him, an example being the young rich ruler, who wanted to know how to be saved.

Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

This story contradicts the doctrine of Total Depravity in several points. First, this unsaved man had a desire to know how to be saved. And I believe he was sincere, and that is shown in the passage. Next, Jesus himself confirms that this young man knew and understood God's commandments. And we see that this young man had made an effort from his youth to keep God's commandments. So, this man was not a rebel towards God at all. Then Jesus said he lacked just one thing, that he sell all his possessions and follow him. Now, this was this young man's problem, he loved his wealth and possessions more than God and was not willing to give up his comfortable life.

And we see the man going away "very sorrowful", it is mentioned twice. He was completely conscious of the choice he had made. But this also confirms that he went away unsaved.

So, here is an example in scripture of an unsaved man who had a desire for God, who understood God's commandments and made an effort to obey. He was not blinded, neither was he a rebel against God. And he made a conscious choice of his wealth and possessions over God.

Another unsaved person who had a desire to be saved was the Philipian jailer. No doubt he was influenced by the Holy Spirit, I do not believe the unsaved man comes to God without being drawn or called. Perhaps he heard Paul and Silas preach, perhaps he observed them, we do not know. But when God caused a great earthquake to open all the doors to the prison, he obviously was deeply convicted by this event.

Acts 16:23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely:
24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.
25 And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them.
26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.
27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.
28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.
29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

This unsaved man absolutely had a desire to know how to be saved, it says he came in trembling and fell down before Paul and Silas. We can see his great fear and humility.

And he asked a very simple and straightforward question, "What must I do to be saved?'

Now, if the doctrines of Calvinism were true, Paul should have told him to do nothing whatsoever, because any action of his own would ursurp God's sovereignty. He should do nothing whatsoever, and if he was fortunate enough to be God's elect, God would regenerate him and he would believe and be saved.

But Paul told him to believe on Jesus Christ and he would be (shalt be) saved. Now, Paul's statement proves he was unsaved when he asked what he must do to be saved. So, this disproves Dagg right there. And not only he, but if his household believed on Christ, they would be saved as well. Then Paul preached the word of God to the jailer and his household, and they all believed and were baptized.

So here is an unsaved man who desired to be saved. He was not rebellious or contentious against God.

So, I do not agree with Dagg and other Calvinists that an unsaved man will always rebel against God. Huge crowds of thousands followed Christ to hear his teachings, and we have the example of the rich young ruler and the Philipian jailer who desired to be saved. Show me even one single word that says they were regenerated to have this desire. You won't find it here, and you won't find it anywhere else in the Bible.

 

[Winman]

Another man who was unsaved, yet desired to be saved was Zacchaeus in Luke. Zacchaus was a publican, a tax collector, and was considered to be a great sinner by the public. A publican could charge a person any amount of tax he wished. He paid the government the tax due, and was allowed to keep the rest. So publicans were often very wealthy and despised by the people.

But Zacchaeus had heard of the Lord and had a desire to see him. He was very short and could not see Jesus for the crowd, so he climbed a tree. This shows his great desire, while yet unsaved. When Jesus called to him, Zacchaeus answered and took him to his home. No doubt the Lord spoke the word of God to him, and Zacchaeus received the Lord and was saved.

Luke 19:1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Zacchaeus was unsaved and a great sinner. He had defrauded many people to gain his wealth. But when he heard of Jesus he had a great desire to see him, so much that he was willing to climb a tree in public to simply get a look at him. I promise you, not many wealthy and powerful people would perform such a humiliating act as this. Zacchaeus was not simply a publican, he was the "chief" of the publicans.

And when Jesus called to Zacchaeus, did Zacchaeus rebel against the Lord? NO. It says he came down quickly and "received him joyfully". This disproves Dagg's doctrine right there. The unsaved man can desire to know God and does not always rebel against him.

And once Zacchaeus heard the Lord, he repented of his sins and promised to give half his wealth to the poor, and to restore those he had defrauded fourfold.

And Jesus said "this day" is salvation come to this house. Zacchaeus was not saved before, he was unsaved when he desired to see Jesus. Notice in verse 3 Zacchaeus did not know who Jesus was, but in verse 8 calls him "Lord".

And again, not one word about Zacchaeus being regenerated to have a desire for God and believe. Not here, or anywhere else in scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman

You believe in the free will of unsaved mankind. When you can present a rational explanation of why some reject salvation and some accept salvation then you may have something. Until that time I will just have to believe in the Sovereign Grace of God in salvation!