Let's hash out the distinction between Original Sin and Total Depravity.

[Iconoclast]

Yet, you are posting multiple fallicious "(*) appealing to authority" responses in order to create a smokescreen and use it to disrupt a debate. Not in spite though...

And of course these men's words are not mere opinions....riiiight. See (*)

Well Benjamin,
Here is where we can see what's what. The thread is about depravity ,related to mans fall into sin and death. here is a link I posted with scriptures everywhere. Feel free to examine any verse offered ,and dazzle us with your philosophy as to why the verse does not say what the teacher set forth......

Show where this is a smokescreen, or opinion.....I do not think you can begin to do it.....let's see what you have....

As sin presupposes God and his moral self–consistency, so all and
every sin is against God (Psa. 51:4): Sin is rebellion against God’s Law (1
Jn. 3:4). Sin is a defiance of God’s authority. It is self–willed refusal to
submit to his revealed will (Gen. 3:9–13; 4:3–14; Rom. 9:14–21). Sin is a
willful ignorance of God’s immanence (Jer. 23:23–24). Sin is a defiance of
God’s revealed will (Matt. 6:10). Sin is a denial of God’s justice. It takes
lightly the precious blood of Christ which has redeemed us, and despises
the infinite sufferings of our loving Savior (Heb. 10:26–31; 1 Pet. 18–20).
Sin is a refusal of God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21–26; Titus 3:5). Sin is an
abuse of God’s goodness (Rom. 2:4). Sin is a repudiation of God’s grace
(Eph. 2:5, 8–10). Sin is a rejection of God’s mercy (Psa. 103:8–18; Psa.
136; Eph. 2:4). Sin is a betrayal of God’s love (Jn. 3:16; Jas. 4:4; 1 Pet.
1:18–20; 1 Jn. 4:9–10). Sin is presumption upon God’s providence (Psa.
19:13). Sin is a maligning of God’s holiness (Lev. 10:1–3; Rom. 6:15–22;
1 Pet. 1:15–16). Sin is a polluting of God’s moral purity (Ex. 20:14; Hab.
1:13; Heb. 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:1). Sin is a despising of God’s wisdom (Rom.
11:33–36). Sin is deceit and hypocrisy in the face of God (Gen. 4:5–10;
Acts 5:3–4; Rom. 6:16–18). Sin is a perversion of God’s command as to
time (Ex. 20:8–11; 2 Cor. 6:2; Eph. 5:14–15). Sin is a disrespect for God’s
ordained authority (Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1–4). Sin is a presumption upon
God’s justice and character (Psa. 19:13; Rom. 6:1–6; Eph. 5:3–4; Rev.
20:11–15). Sin is an insult to God’s intelligence (Heb. 12:3–15). Sin is a
provocation of God’s anger (Heb. 10:31; 12:3–15).
Sin possesses five realities: guilt, penalty, pollution, power and presence

 

[Skandelon]

This conclusion is further substantiated by Calvin's exposition of Romans 1:18-23, which inspired and forms the background to the discussion in the Institutes. In his 1540 Commentary on Romans Calvin explicitly asserts that it is the knowledge of God possessed by fallen human persons that renders them inexcusable.16 After affirming the majesty of God set forth in the created order, Calvin makes three claims:
(i) the evidence of God's existence in creation is sufficiently clear in itself,

(ii) it is rendered obscure [not eradicated] by human blindness,

and (iii) human blindness does not preclude our having some knowledge of God in our fallen state. Calvin writes: "We are not so blind that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped. . . .but this knowledge which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation. . .

This is senseless because if salvation from condemnation is not in view then from what are they being excused? If acknowledging God as God in faith would have saved them, and they have no excuse for not doing just that then how can you deny that it was insufficient to 'bring salvation.'

It's like a teacher saying to her failing students, "You have no excuse because I explained all the assignments clearly and you had ample opportunity to complete them." But then someone else coming along and saying, "They are without excuse for not following their teachers instructions, but this doesn't mean they had what they needed to pass the class." The EXCUSE is for their failure of the course BECAUSE they didn't follow the teacher's instructions, just as man's excuse is for his being condemned (unsaved) because He didn't believe and follow God. Your view gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief...."Faith wasn't granted to them by their maker...." what better excuse is there for an unbeliever than that?

 

[Skandelon]

Describe the power to which you are alluding. What does it do, specifically?

It informs men of truth and draws (or enables) them to respond to that truth.

Those who refuse to believe this truth do so for one of two reasons:

1) Because faith wasn't granted to them due to fact that God didn't really will for them to be saved (the perfect excuse for the unbeliever)

OR

2) Despite God 'holding out his hands to them' (Rm. 10:21), His 'longing to gather them' (Mt. 23:37), and his 'desire to see them all come to repentance' (2 Pt 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4), they freely chose to rebel and reject God's genuine and sincere appeal for all men to be reconciled to Him. (unbelievers are actually without any excuses)

 

[Skandelon]

As sin presupposes God and his moral self–consistency, so all and
every sin is against God (Psa. 51:4): Sin is rebellion against God’s Law (1
Jn. 3:4). Sin is a defiance of God’s authority. It is self–willed refusal to
submit to his revealed will (Gen. 3:9–13; 4:3–14; Rom. 9:14–21). Sin is a
willful ignorance of God’s immanence (Jer. 23:23–24). Sin is a defiance of
God’s revealed will (Matt. 6:10). Sin is a denial of God’s justice. It takes
lightly the precious blood of Christ which has redeemed us, and despises
the infinite sufferings of our loving Savior (Heb. 10:26–31; 1 Pet. 18–20).
Sin is a refusal of God’s righteousness (Rom. 3:21–26; Titus 3:5). Sin is an
abuse of God’s goodness (Rom. 2:4). Sin is a repudiation of God’s grace
(Eph. 2:5, 8–10). Sin is a rejection of God’s mercy (Psa. 103:8–18; Psa.
136; Eph. 2:4). Sin is a betrayal of God’s love (Jn. 3:16; Jas. 4:4; 1 Pet.
1:18–20; 1 Jn. 4:9–10). Sin is presumption upon God’s providence (Psa.
19:13). Sin is a maligning of God’s holiness (Lev. 10:1–3; Rom. 6:15–22;
1 Pet. 1:15–16). Sin is a polluting of God’s moral purity (Ex. 20:14; Hab.
1:13; Heb. 7:25; 1 Jn. 2:1). Sin is a despising of God’s wisdom (Rom.
11:33–36). Sin is deceit and hypocrisy in the face of God (Gen. 4:5–10;
Acts 5:3–4; Rom. 6:16–18). Sin is a perversion of God’s command as to
time (Ex. 20:8–11; 2 Cor. 6:2; Eph. 5:14–15). Sin is a disrespect for God’s
ordained authority (Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1–4). Sin is a presumption upon
God’s justice and character (Psa. 19:13; Rom. 6:1–6; Eph. 5:3–4; Rev.
20:11–15). Sin is an insult to God’s intelligence (Heb. 12:3–15). Sin is a
provocation of God’s anger (Heb. 10:31; 12:3–15).
Sin possesses five realities: guilt, penalty, pollution, power and presence

Icon, I'm not sure what the all the fuss is over these truths. I see nothing here with which any non-Calvinistic scholar would disagree. Do you? If so, what and why?

 

[Benjamin]

Well Benjamin,
Here is where we can see what's what. The thread is about depravity ,related to mans fall into sin and death. here is a link I posted with scriptures everywhere.

Show where this is a smokescreen, or opinion.....I do not think you can begin to do it.....let's see what you have....

Weelll Iconoclast: Sorry, I don’t see the words “total depravity” in any of those verses or the reasonings that are even addressing that doctrine. It is clear that all have sinned (Rom 3:32), no one is arguing that, so what’s your point? Could you please point to where the words “total depravity” is used in the Bible or are you coming to those conclusions by some other means.

Total depravity, I don’t see those words in the Bible anywhere??? I do see where all mankind is called to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Would you like me to post a few of these??? Exactly how does “total depravity”, which words I can not find in the Bible, correspond with God’s genuine commandments for all men to respond to His callings? Seems you are claiming on the philosophical grounds of some obviously false doctrines of very confused men (“Total depravity” brought forth by Calvin and his follower) that the Bible says we can not do something God commands us to do?

Anyway, the point I made concerning this tread, which you have ignored, is that you are using philosophical principles of men and declaring them not to be opinions. At least, tell me how these opinions “relate” to the false doctrine of Total depravity and how they prove God’s calling is not genuine to all men. If you don’t want to use your own opinions on this all you have to do is show me where the words “total depravity” are written in the Bible and I will no longer believe your reasoning to be based on the distorted forced to fit false doctrines of confused men trying to support the philosophical principles of Calvin.

BTW, are you and EWF serious that we are required to read all your links and before continuing with the debate here must address every error in their doctrines? Are you two trying to avoid something here??? You kinda know that's a smokescreen tactic now don't cha? Come on, tell the truth. :laugh:

 

[percho]

"How can God rightly condemn mankind with eternity in hell for not fulfilling a requirement that they are not even given the ability to fulfill?"

The problem as I see it is; We think and believe it is all about man and mankind.

That God created the first man, Adam in his own image and man fell, therefore God had to go to plan B, when in reality plan B is plan A.

From the foundation of the world, world being this current system, let there be light, I believe God was doing this:

2 Cor. 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.

Christ the Lamb was slain from the time it was said let there be light.

The first man Adam was created subject to sin bringing death to all men for the purpose of God, that being, in the second man, the Lord from heaven, the last Adam death (which was in concept and in existence before the first man Adam was created and was present on the earth, see darkness in Gen 1:2. The reason darkness was on the face of the deep is because God had removed his presence from the earth when Satan sinned.) the last enemy, death, could be destroyed.

God is reconciling through Christ followed by election according to grace. Even the Christ is of the elect being a seed of Abraham and David. It was to Abraham and his one seed the Christ the promises were made. We are made heirs, not yet inheritors, through the Christ.

By The Way. They do not need the ability to a requirement. See the rest of 2 Cor 5:19 not imputing their trespasses unto them;

I can hear your question. All I can say is, Take it up with the Potter.

 

[quantumfaith]

It informs men of truth and draws (or enables) them to respond to that truth.

Those who refuse to believe this truth do so for one of two reasons:

1) Because faith wasn't granted to them due to fact that God didn't really will for them to be saved (the perfect excuse for the unbeliever)

OR

2) Despite God 'holding out his hands to them' (Rm. 10:21), His 'longing to gather them' (Mt. 23:37), and his 'desire to see them all come to repentance' (2 Pt 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4), they freely chose to rebel and reject God's genuine and sincere appeal for all men to be reconciled to Him. (unbelievers are actually without any excuses)

ooooh, oooooh (hand raised) I know the answer. Number 2!

 

[Aaron]

It informs men of truth and draws (or enables) them to respond to that truth.

Those who refuse to believe this truth do so for one of two reasons:

1) Because faith wasn't granted to them due to fact that God didn't really will for them to be saved (the perfect excuse for the unbeliever)

OR

2) Despite God 'holding out his hands to them' (Rm. 10:21), His 'longing to gather them' (Mt. 23:37), and his 'desire to see them all come to repentance' (2 Pt 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4), they freely chose to rebel and reject God's genuine and sincere appeal for all men to be reconciled to Him. (unbelievers are actually without any excuses)

So without this power, men cannot see nor respond to the truth. Is this a work of the Spirit?

 

[Skandelon]

So without this power, men cannot see nor respond to the truth.

How will they respond to that which they do not know? And yes, the Gospel has power. (ref. Rom 1:16)

It has the power to accomplish its purpose: To inform men of the truth and empower them to be reconciled to God.

Is this a work of the Spirit?

Is the gospel a work of the Holy Spirit? Yes. Jesus said, "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." The Holy Spirit inspired the authoring of the Gospel truth. The Holy Spirit preserved that truth for generations. The Holy Spirit continues to indwell, guide and motivate the messengers of this Gospel.

I'd call that a work of the Spirit. Wouldn't you?

 

[Aaron]

Let's break it down. One thing at a time.

It has the power to accomplish its purpose: To inform men of the truth . . .

You say the Gospel has power to inform. Is there a resistance or barrier of some kind that the message must overcome? Or are you simply saying men were ignorant of the Gospel, and then they were informed? And if the latter is the case, how does the power of the Gospel differ from, say, the power of Windows 7 for Dummies?

 

[Iconoclast]

Skan,

This is senseless because if salvation from condemnation is not in view then from what are they being excused? If acknowledging God as God in faith would have saved them, and they have no excuse for not doing just that then how can you deny that it was insufficient to 'bring salvation.'

Men are not saved primarily from condemnation...they are saved from sins.
When the elect are saved from sins...there is no longer any condemnation.

If acknowledging God as God in faith would have saved them, and they have no excuse for not doing just that then how can you deny that it was insufficient to 'bring salvation.'

Sinners are truth suppressors.they know there is a God...but will not and cannot submit to Him on His terms.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon, I'm not sure what the all the fuss is over these truths. I see nothing here with which any non-Calvinistic scholar would disagree. Do you? If so, what and why?

They should not disagree with any of these verses at all. These sins listed show the nature of depraved mans sins.
In your scheme you have this reality of sin and depravity as no obstacle whatsoever for the sinner to overcome ...much less a satanic blindness.
2cor4:4-6

 

[Iconoclast]

Weelll Iconoclast: Sorry, I don’t see the words “total depravity” in any of those verses or the reasonings that are even addressing that doctrine. It is clear that all have sinned (Rom 3:32), no one is arguing that, so what’s your point? Could you please point to where the words “total depravity” is used in the Bible or are you coming to those conclusions by some other means.

Total depravity, I don’t see those words in the Bible anywhere??? I do see where all mankind is called to believe in God and Jesus Christ. Would you like me to post a few of these??? Exactly how does “total depravity”, which words I can not find in the Bible, correspond with God’s genuine commandments for all men to respond to His callings? Seems you are claiming on the philosophical grounds of some obviously false doctrines of very confused men (“Total depravity” brought forth by Calvin and his follower) that the Bible says we can not do something God commands us to do?

Anyway, the point I made concerning this tread, which you have ignored, is that you are using philosophical principles of men and declaring them not to be opinions. At least, tell me how these opinions “relate” to the false doctrine of Total depravity and how they prove God’s calling is not genuine to all men. If you don’t want to use your own opinions on this all you have to do is show me where the words “total depravity” are written in the Bible and I will no longer believe your reasoning to be based on the distorted forced to fit false doctrines of confused men trying to support the philosophical principles of Calvin.

BTW, are you and EWF serious that we are required to read all your links and before continuing with the debate here must address every error in their doctrines? Are you two trying to avoid something here??? You kinda know that's a smokescreen tactic now don't cha? Come on, tell the truth.

Benjamin,
this post of yours is non responsive to the challenge I offered you in post 21.
The sins listed here as examples show that man as a truth supressor is intellectually, morally, emotionally perverted....as I posted earlier. if you list the sins from this one list it is evident.

Total depravity, I don’t see those words in the Bible anywhere???

yeah...it's right next to trinity....grow up just a bit please. To go to absurd reasoning is not going to get it done. if you want to go off on semantics play with someone else.

BTW, are you and EWF serious that we are required to read all your links and before continuing with the debate here must address every error in their doctrines? Are you two trying to avoid something here??? You kinda know that's a smokescreen tactic now don't cha? Come on, tell the truth. :laugh:

If someone was serious about the word of God you would read the links.. a couple of paragraphs is not going to hurt anyone. You and others do not come to truth here because you are not teachable.
You made claims about the links...but as I figured..you cannot show anything wrong with the scriptural teaching...but again you address me personally.

I did notice you offered one verse.....I am thankful for that:thumbs:

God’s calling is not genuine to all men

God's call is genuine to all men

all you have to do is show me where the words “total depravity” are written in the Bible and I will no longer believe your reasoning to be based on the distorted forced to fit false doctrines

To list all the verses that encompass this teaching can and has been done.

In romans 1 we are told that God has given men over to a reprobate mind for example...then all manner of sins are listed...as in eph2,4,5 1cor 5,6
we both know that tulip is a summary phrase of the biblical teaching.....as you have no answer to any of the links at all...you will want to drone on and on..about show me this word or that. let me know when you want to address the scriptures...as I have said before...i would help you...but I need to obey in principle Mt7:6 for now....until i see otherwise.
Your errant views of God's decree....coupled with your wrong view of fatalism might be too much for you to overcome.

 

[percho]

When people are confronted with Calvinistic teaching their first and most difficult objection is typically something like this:

"How can God rightly condemn mankind with eternity in hell for not fulfilling a requirement that they are not even given the ability to fulfill?"

This is an objection to "Total Depravity." The belief that mankind does not have the ability to respond positively to the call of gospel message.

I'm interested to discuss, in a civil manner, with Calvinists on this board how they biblically respond to this objection and defend this view of Total inability.

I've read through the story of the fall, and many NT passages dealing with the results of the fall and I'm not able to find a verse that clearly teaches that mankind loses the ability to respond positively to God's message of reconciliation. Don't get me wrong. I affirm the doctrine of original sin, in that we are all born "fallen" and thus in need of a savior...I just take issue with the idea that the message God sent for the purpose of reconciling the world to himself is somehow insufficient to envoke a positive reply.

Calvinists often turn to Rom 8:7: "the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8 Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

I agree that we are born in a sinful state that is hostile to God's law and that as long as we remain under the control of that sin nature we cannot please God...in that we cannot ever complete the demands of the law (as this verse states). But does that say anything about the ability of a lost man to hear, believe and repent when confronted with the powerful Spirit wrought gospel? No. It only speaks of man's nature if left to himself. It says nothing of the ability of one to be reconciled by a divine message sent for the purpose of reconcilation.

Are there any passages that do address this clearly?

Let's say a man sent by God goes into a prison yard containing 500 men all 500 unsaved. He preaches the sermon of his life. Did God send that word of salvation to all 500 of those men as their chance to respond to him, being the next day the prison is bombed and all are killed?

I will even agree that was a dumb question. Except, I think about Paul. Why did not Paul on the day Stephen was stoned not fall to the ground in repentance toward God? Surely he heard the sermon of Stephen. Was that sermon meant for Paul? Maybe God was just slowly drawing Paul at the expense of Stephen. Did God grant to Paul on that day on the road to Damascus something he did not have the day he held the coats of those who stoned Stephen?

BTW I have more questions here than I do answers.

 

[Benjamin]

If someone was serious about the word of God you would read the links.. a couple of paragraphs is not going to hurt anyone. You and others do not come to truth here because you are not teachable.
You made claims about the links...but as I figured..you cannot show anything wrong with the scriptural teaching...but again you address me personally.

The Total Depravity of Man by A.W. Pink and a book by W. R. Downing are not a few paragraphs nor are they scripture ("the word of God"); which brings me back to my objection which you continue to ignore:

Originally Posted by Iconoclast
Thank you for your response. I have already posted to Skan the other day why I personally reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning....

Originally Posted by Benjamin:
Anyway, the point I made concerning this tread, which you have ignored, is that you are using philosophical principles of men and declaring them not to be opinions. At least, tell me how these opinions “relate” to the false doctrine of Total depravity and how they prove God’s calling is not genuine to all men. If you don’t want to use your own opinions on this all you have to do is show me where the words “total depravity” are written in the Bible and I will no longer believe your reasoning to be based on the distorted forced to fit false doctrines of confused men trying to support the philosophical principles of Calvin.

Again, you have not answered my objections to you using, yet denying that you use the philosophical principles of others and while declaring them not to be opinions/i.e. “philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” of men. You are “appealing to authority” of these men as if they were scripture and certainly these philosophical principles are not equivalent to scriptures nor is the doctrine of “total depravity” equivalent to the doctrine of Trinity for that matter.

I will not play games of chase the rabbit with you. It is you that is not teachable in the truth as you refuse to be edified; stick to the point that I have raised and be honest about relying on the philosophical principles of the followers of Calvin. You have clearly been referring to these Calvinistic doctrines as inerrant and not being of opinions (that can only mean one thing); answer my objection truthfully which shows that you in fact do not “reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” which is really not the base to my objection but that you proclaim these doctrines to not be of men’s opinions and that only leaves one option, that you believe they are equivalent to scripture. I object to your comparisons of these men’s words to the truth of scripture and to your denial of the use of human reasoning and logic to come to your conclusions.

 

[Iconoclast]

The Total Depravity of Man by A.W. Pink and a book by W. R. Downing are not a few paragraphs nor are they scripture ("the word of God"); which brings me back to my objection which you continue to ignore:


You have not answered this:

Well Benjamin,
Here is where we can see what's what. The thread is about depravity ,related to mans fall into sin and death. here is a link I posted with scriptures everywhere. Feel free to examine any verse offered ,and dazzle us with your philosophy as to why the verse does not say what the teacher set forth......[/QUOTE]

Again, you have not answered my objections to you using, yet denying that you use the philosophical principles of others and while declaring them not to be opinions/i.e. “philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” of men. You are “appealing to authority” of these men as if they were scripture and certainly these philosophical principles are not equivalent to scriptures nor is the doctrine of “total depravity” equivalent to the doctrine of Trinity for that matter.

I will not play games of chase the rabbit with you. It is you that is not teachable in the truth as you refuse to be edified; stick to the point that I have raised and be honest about relying on the philosophical principles of the followers of Calvin. You have clearly been referring to these Calvinistic doctrines as inerrant and not being of opinions (that can only mean one thing); answer my objection truthfully which shows that you in fact do not “reject the subjective world of philosophy, carnal logic and reasoning” which is really not the base to my objection but that you proclaim these doctrines to not be of men’s opinions and that only leaves one option, that you believe they are equivalent to scripture. I object to your comparisons of these men’s words to the truth of scripture and to your denial of the use of human reasoning and logic to come to your conclusions.

Another post with no scripture.....you have no interest. You do not answer Pink or Downing...because you cannot......I understand.
They use scripture you quote this....lol

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. ~Galileo

Enjoy your philosophy....I did not quote the whole book by either teacher...just a few paragraphs....yet....you still refuse to respond to post 21.

Pink starts off with this;

How weighty and full the testimony of Scripture is on this solemn feature: "When they knew God [traditionally], they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" (Rom. 1:21-22). That reference is to the Gentiles after the flood. One of the fearful curses executed on Israel, because they did not listen

He turns his attention and the readers attention to scripture.......you avoid it at all cost. You cannot answer Pink, Downing, Owen, John Murray, J.l. Dagg,Boyce, because they deal scripturally...you are out of your element.

get some ravi zacharias messages as he is given over to the philosophical...then you can feast on parsing words, and phrases..

It is you that is not teachable in the truth as you refuse to be edified;

Once again you project what you do onto others...there is probably a word for this...but it escapes me...just as the truth of God's grace remains hidden from you. You attack what you do not understand....

I knew you could not respond when I gave you the opportunity.....and that has not changed....:thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

This is senseless because if salvation from condemnation is not in view then from what are they being excused? If acknowledging God as God in faith would have saved them, and they have no excuse for not doing just that then how can you deny that it was insufficient to 'bring salvation.'

It's like a teacher saying to her failing students, "You have no excuse because I explained all the assignments clearly and you had ample opportunity to complete them." But then someone else coming along and saying, "They are without excuse for not following their teachers instructions, but this doesn't mean they had what they needed to pass the class." The EXCUSE is for their failure of the course BECAUSE they didn't follow the teacher's instructions, just as man's excuse is for his being condemned (unsaved) because He didn't believe and follow God. Your view gives unbelievers the perfect excuse for their unbelief...."Faith wasn't granted to them by their maker...." what better excuse is there for an unbeliever than that?

This makes waaaaay tooooooo much sense Bro. Skan. I likened this to setting in the class, and eventhough they never offered you the book to study, you will fail that class anyways.

 

[convicted1]

Skan,



Men are not saved primarily from condemnation...they are saved from sins.
When the elect are saved from sins...there is no longer any condemnation.



Sinners are truth suppressors.they know there is a God...but will not and cannot submit to Him on His terms.

What brings condemnation?

 

[convicted1]

It informs men of truth and draws (or enables) them to respond to that truth.

Those who refuse to believe this truth do so for one of two reasons:

1) Because faith wasn't granted to them due to fact that God didn't really will for them to be saved (the perfect excuse for the unbeliever)

OR

2) Despite God 'holding out his hands to them' (Rm. 10:21), His 'longing to gather them' (Mt. 23:37), and his 'desire to see them all come to repentance' (2 Pt 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4), they freely chose to rebel and reject God's genuine and sincere appeal for all men to be reconciled to Him. (unbelievers are actually without any excuses)

To answer #2: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

ooooh, oooooh (hand raised) I know the answer. Number 2!

That "oooooh ooooooh" had me worried for a moment there Brother Quant. I thought you might have mistaken an "ex-lax" for an Hershey bar..... and that does cause #2 ya know?