Libertarian Free Will is an Extra-Biblical Commitment

[ReformedBaptist]

Hi reformed;
You quoted;
Are you making the claim that this is what God said?
MB

My quote is from Romans.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, MB, Calvinists fail to realize this is a quote of unbelievers, those who not like what Paul is telling them. It is God's word, but God often records the false statements of men and even Satan in his word.

MB and Winman, you are silly boys. Calvinists have always understood that Romans 9:19 is an example of Paul vocing the views of objectors to God's sovereignty.

It's very clear:One of you will say to me:"Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"

Verse 14 and 20 also are examples of Paul voicing the views of the objectors.

Romans 9 supports what Calvinists have always claimed. The voice of the objectors are in essence the voices of Arminians.

 

[Winman]

MB and Winman, you are silly boys. Calvinists have always understood that Romans 9:19 is an example of Paul vocing the views of objectors to God's sovereignty.

It's very clear:One of you will say to me:"Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?"

Verse 14 and 20 also are examples of Paul voicing the views of the objectors.

Romans 9 supports what Calvinists have always claimed. The voice of the objectors are in essence the voices of Arminians.

Well, it is fairly obvious that one Calvinist does not understand this. :laugh:

And even that is not so, I have seen this verse presented by Calvinists several times on this forum alone.

You Calvinists should all get together and decide what you believe, it would make it far easier to debate you, not that it is difficult, it is actually easy. There is an abundance of scripture to show it false.

One thing I notice is that Calvinist's rarely quote scripture. And when they do, it is just a few select verses, and almost always taken out of context.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, it is fairly obvious that one Calvinist does not understand this. :laugh:

And even that is not so, I have seen this verse presented by Calvinists several times on this forum alone.

You Calvinists should all get together and decide what you believe, it would make it far easier to debate you, not that it is difficult, it is actually easy. There is an abundance of scripture to show it false.

One thing I notice is that Calvinist's rarely quote scripture. And when they do, it is just a few select verses, and almost always taken out of context.

Yes, this forum is actually the worldwide representation of Calvinism for all mankind.

Listen son, please take some time to study the doctrinal creeds of those your going to attack...then come back when you have done your homework.

 

[Winman]

Listen son, please take some time to study the doctrinal creeds of those your going to attack...then come back when you have done your homework.

Son? I just looked at your profile. I got saved in 1965, eight years before you were born. I have children your age. :laugh:

And I prefer to study the Bible, not the teachings of men. You should try it sometime.

 

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Winman,

So, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that when God uses the word choose as in Deut 30:19, he does not really mean choose?

He really means ‘choose.’ However, for you to understand this word to mean “choose with libertarian freewill” you *must* read that into the text.

And when God says "own voluntary will" in Lev. 1:3 he does not really mean a person's own, free, and volutary will?

I have already explained this to you in a prior post which you have yet to interact with (here). Please show me the courtesy of interacting with my answer given there.

And when God uses the word freewill as in Ezr 3:5, he does not really mean we have a free will that we can exercise ourselves?

My answer regarding Ezra 3:5 would be the same idea conveyed in my answer given in Lev. 1:3.

And when God says willingly as in Exo 25:2, he really does not mean willingly?

If by this you think He means giving from the heart, then yes. The question is whether or not the state of the heart is such that it has LFW.

And I have not addressed the state of the will in my answer? You mean words like"freewill" and "voluntary will" do not address this?

If you think these words do address the issue, then make your arguments explicit. So far, all you do is quote verses as if the words on the page were naked brute facts rather than ancient text that needs to be properly interpreted.

You are practically calling God a liar.

This is precious. Let me get this straight.

Winman says, “The Bible says ‘choose’!”

Brian responds, “Yup.”

Winman says, “Therefore, our choosing is done with Libertarian Freedom!”

Brian says, “That is not what the text says…it only says ‘choose’.”

Winman says, “You make God a liar.”

Nice. :love2:

God says men have their own voluntary will, but you imply that it is not really your own personal will, and that it is not truly voluntary. God uses the word freewill, but you suggest it is not really free.

First off, I have already argued why the term “freewill offering” in Lev 1:3 does not assert that our choice to give is done with libertarian freedom. You ignored this argument. Secondly, just because the Bible uses a word that is translated into the English as “freewill” does not mean that it is asserting the technical position that our wills have libertarian freedom. We are all “free” to do what we want. The problem is not this. The problem is with our “want to” mechanism. Is that mechanism free in its determination of what is that we want? That is the issue, and you are either ignoring this, or you do not understand it. Here is a model that might make things more clear for you.

Level 1 Given a choice between two options our choosing mechanism makes a decision as to what option we deam best based on our perception of the merits of those options.

Level 2 Our will chooses the option that we deam best.

LFW is claim about the process that takes place at Level 1 - not Level 2.

Brian

 

[Winman]

Brian, I read that post you provided a link to, and I also read your examples, "Level 1" and "Level 2"

In my opinion, you are approaching this question with a pre-bias. You are accepting Calvinist doctrine that unsaved man has a free will, but that will will always decide against God, and that an unsaved man's heart must be changed by God and given new desires before a man has the ability to choose for God.

All I can do is offer you examples from scripture. The examples I will show you will not show that an unsaved man can choose for good, they will show a saved, righteous person can choose for evil.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Here is when God gave man his first rule or law. Adam was told he could freely eat of every tree of the garden with one exception, that being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He was not free to eat of it.

So, if Calvinism is true, Adam and Eve could not have eaten of this tree. They were created sinless and perfect.

Gen 1:31 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.

At the end of day six God declared his entire creation "very good". This would include Adam and Eve, and Satan and the angels also.

So, if your theory is correct, neither Adam, Eve, Satan, or the angels could have decided for evil. But that is not what we see. Adam and Eve sinned, as well as Satan and many of the other angels. So obviously they had freewill and could choose good or evil.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So, here was Eve in sinless perfection, yet she had her own perceptions and desires. The tree may have been beautiful to look upon, but certainly for a sinless and righteous person it would not have been desired if they only had God's will, as the eating of it would bring death as promised by God himself. And a sinless, perfect person will always choose for God if what Calvinism teaches is true.

And we see the same with Satan, he was not created evil, he was perfect in all his ways until iniquity was found in him. So clearly he had the ability to choose either good or evil, even in a perfect, sinless state.

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Some try to argue these verses speak of the king of Tyrus, but clearly they do not. The king of Tyrus was never in the garden of Eden, but Satan was. After Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden God set an angel to guard entry into the garden. And the garden was probably destroyed later in Noah's flood. Also, this person is said to be the annointed cherub that covereth. So it is speaking of an angelic being. But notice in verse 15 that it says he was "perfect in thy ways" from the day that he was created until iniquity was found in him.

So, it is clear that a perfect and righteous person has freewill and can choose either good or evil.

And I think it a poor argument to say that when man sinned he lost this ability to choose between good and evil. First, it is never said in scripture, and second, God clearly said man knows good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Calvinists are in the awkward position of saying that man knows good and evil (it cannot be denied, God himself said so), yet man cannot possibly choose good and will always choose evil.

Let me ask you a question. If an unsaved man gives much money to charity to feed poor starving children, is that a good work? And if a saved man gives much money to charity to feed poor starving children, is his work any better than the unsaved man's?

So, it is clear that unsaved man can do good. When an unsaved man gives to feed the poor, it is the very same work as when a saved man gives to feed the poor.

Isn't it?

 

[Rippon]

In my opinion, you are approaching this question with a pre-bias.

You're coining a new word.

You are accepting Calvinist doctrine that unsaved man has a free will...

What Calvinist makes that claim? Cite a confessional statement to that effect.

So, if Calvinism is true, Adam and Eve could not have eaten of this tree. They were created sinless and perfect.

They were not created with the ability not to sin. Where did you ever read that Calvinists think that Adam and Eve could not have eaten of the tree? Where in the world do you get your information -- or do you make it up as you go?

Adam and Eve sinned... So obviously they had freewill ...

Yes, Calvinists have always taught that Adam and Eve had free will before the Fall.

Let me ask you a question. If an unsaved man gives much money to charity to feed poor starving children, is that a good work? And if a saved man gives much money to charity to feed poor starving children, is his work any better than the unsaved man's?

The unsaved man did a wicked act -- the saved man a righteous deed. The former didn't do it out of a love for God, but the latter did his deed for God's honor -- a big difference.

Of course the unsaved man actions were not as wicked as killing another -- but still sin nontheless.

So, it is clear that unsaved man can do good. When an unsaved man gives to feed the poor, it is the very same work as when a saved man gives to feed the poor.

No. You think horizontally. You compare people with other folks. You need to think vertically. God's view of the seemingly nice actions of the wicked is considerably against your view.

 

[saturneptune]

.

They were not created with the ability not to sin. Where did you ever read that Calvinists think that Adam and Eve could not have eaten of the tree? Where in the world do you get your information -- or do you make it up as you go?


Yes, Calvinists have always taught that Adam and Eve had free will before the Fall.


The unsaved man did a wicked act -- the saved man a righteous deed. The former didn't do it out of a love for God, but the latter did his deed for God's honor -- a big difference.

Of course the unsaved man actions were not as wicked as killing another -- but still sin nontheless.

No. You think horizontally. You compare people with other folks. You need to think vertically. God's view of the seemingly nice actions of the wicked is considerably against your view.

Excellent post. Those are all good statements, especially the last one.

 

[The Archangel]

Winman,

You argument is, in large part, a non-sequitur argument. You are arguing something Calvinism never claims.

So, if Calvinism is true, Adam and Eve could not have eaten of this tree. They were created sinless and perfect.

At the end of day six God declared his entire creation "very good". This would include Adam and Eve, and Satan and the angels also.

So, if your theory is correct, neither Adam, Eve, Satan, or the angels could have decided for evil. But that is not what we see. Adam and Eve sinned, as well as Satan and many of the other angels. So obviously they had freewill and could choose good or evil.

So, here was Eve in sinless perfection, yet she had her own perceptions and desires. The tree may have been beautiful to look upon, but certainly for a sinless and righteous person it would not have been desired if they only had God's will, as the eating of it would bring death as promised by God himself. And a sinless, perfect person will always choose for God if what Calvinism teaches is true.

There is a basic misunderstanding of what Calvinism teaches seen in this statement. Calvinism has never claimed this. Remember that Calvin was, essentially, Augustinian and Augustine was, essentially, Pauline. Augustine proposed four "categories," if you will, of freedom as related to sin:

1. Able to sin; able not to sin--this is the state that Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden. It is a state of true freewill

2. Not able not to sin--this is the natural state of every person who lives in the post-fall world. It is a state of slavery to sin where there is no true freewill.

3. Able to sin; able not to sin--this is the state of the Christian. It is a state of true freewill, although the challenges of this age (as in today) are far greater than Adam and Eve's in the Garden, they only had one law.

4. Not able to sin--this is the state of the Christian in the eternal kingdom. It is a state where we will not be tempted to sin and where we cannot sin.

So, we would never say that Adam and Eve couldn't sin because they were "perfect."

Also, we would also say that Satan and the angels freely chose to rebel. But the interesting thing about Satan and the angels is this: They are never offered forgiveness. There simply is no redemption for them and there never will be.

And I think it a poor argument to say that when man sinned he lost this ability to choose between good and evil. First, it is never said in scripture, and second, God clearly said man knows good and evil.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

First, in response to your "first" above, it is stated in Scripture:

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind (Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV)

Dead in trespasses in sin, following the spirit now at work in the sons of disobedience--where we all once lived and were by nature children of wrath.

Paul paints an even more dismal picture here:

15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:15-23 ESV, emphases mine)

Paul is arguing that a non-Christian is a slave to sin. Therefore, Augustine was right--not able not to sin. And, here's Paul again...this time in Titus 3:3: 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.

Secondly, again in your response to your "second," you are not understanding Genesis 3:22.

Genesis 3:22 says: Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever

There are several things to point out here. Your wrong understanding of this text is based on the word "knowing." The root word is yada, the Hebrew verb meaning "to know." There is a wide range of usage with this word and, depending on context, it can occasionally mean choose (but I have only seen it used this way where God is saying that He chose). However, the more common translation is "to know." The construction of the word in this passage is a qal infinitive and, therefore should be translated "knowing" (I point this out to suggest that the translation you are using is not the best).

Now yada is commonly used as a euphamism for sexual intercourse--Adam "knew" Eve, etc. This verb implies knowledge by experience. One could say that Adam "experienced" Eve in a sexual way and it would capture the meaning of the euphamism.

So, "knowing" here, by definintion, implies "experience."

So, what God is saying in is inter-trinitarian conversation is that mankind has now known evil by experience--whereas before the fall mankind only knew what evil was in the abstract (eg. something God commanded not to do and doing that thing would be "evil.").

So, it is you who are coming to this text with "pre-bias" (which is more commonly called a "pre-supposition" which means coming to the text with an a priori set of committments.). You continually want the text to say something is simply does not. Your errant interpretation of Genesis 3:22 is a perfect example of this.

Now, it is possible I will get an insult-laden, anti-Calvinist diatribe in return for this post, but I'd encourage you to look past the Calvinism thing and try to figure out what the text actually says, regardless of your being a Calvinist or an Arminian.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Allan]

Hello Archangel :wavey:

Though I differ with you slightly on when a person is enabled to choose as well as differing slightly win, I think his argument from Genesis, in part has to do with the fact that Brian does not believe man had the free will to choose even prior to the fall. This is noted previously in the thread between him and OldRegular (who is also Reformed):

Originally posted by Brian Bosse:
Hello OR,

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Prior to the fall mankind [Adam and Eve] had free will. After the fall mankind did not have free will, libertarian or otherwise.

You and I will have to agree to disagree. This topic is beyond the scope of this thread. If you want to start a discussion around this in another thread, then please feel to do so. I promise to participate if you do.

Sincerely,

Brian

He assumes the idea of and commitment to free-will is the result of the fall.

 

[Winman]

Thank you Allan, that was my point, simply to show that man has free will.

And Archangel, you argue Ephesians chapter 2 to show that unsaved man must first be regenerated before they can believe or have a will to obey God, but chapter 1 shows they first believed before they received the Spirit. I believe that any man who hears the word of God can believe if he so chooses. I do not think unsaved man can come to God without the word of God.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

They were not sealed with the Spirit until after they believed, and they did not believe until they first heard the word of God. This shows that not only can unsaved man hear the gospel, they can believe it. And this is verified in Acts.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

This is the account of the Ephesians. They had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. After Paul preached the word of God to them, they believed and were baptized. After believeing Paul laid hands on them and they received the Spirit.

You can insist the unsaved cannot respond to the gospel, Jesus himself said otherwise.

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

Jesus is speaking of men who are physically alive here, but spiritually dead. Jesus says not only can they hear him, but those who hear him and believe will live.

 

[Amy.G]

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

Jesus is speaking of men who are physically alive here, but spiritually dead. Jesus says not only can they hear him, but those who hear him and believe will live.

Yep. How can it be understood any other way?

 

[The Archangel]

Hello Archangel :wavey:

Though I differ with you slightly on when a person is enabled to choose as well as differing slightly win, I think his argument from Genesis, in part has to do with the fact that Brian does not believe man had the free will to choose even prior to the fall. This is noted previously in the thread between him and OldRegular (who is also Reformed):

He assumes the idea of and commitment to free-will is the result of the fall.

Allan,

Good to hear from you. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. It is certainly interesting to claim that Adam and Eve did not have free will prior to the fall. I certainly don't agree with that, being the Augustinian that I am.

That being the case, however, I still think that Winman's argument cannot be made from that passage in Genesis.

Blessings to you!

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Thank you Allan, that was my point, simply to show that man has free will.

And Archangel, you argue Ephesians chapter 2 to show that unsaved man must first be regenerated before they can believe or have a will to obey God, but chapter 1 shows they first believed before they received the Spirit. I believe that any man who hears the word of God can believe if he so chooses. I do not think unsaved man can come to God without the word of God.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

They were not sealed with the Spirit until after they believed, and they did not believe until they first heard the word of God. This shows that not only can unsaved man hear the gospel, they can believe it. And this is verified in Acts.

Acts 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

This is the account of the Ephesians. They had not even heard of the Holy Spirit. After Paul preached the word of God to them, they believed and were baptized. After believeing Paul laid hands on them and they received the Spirit.

You can insist the unsaved cannot respond to the gospel, Jesus himself said otherwise.

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

Jesus is speaking of men who are physically alive here, but spiritually dead. Jesus says not only can they hear him, but those who hear him and believe will live.

You are completely missing the point of my argument--and that is, perhaps, on purpose. Rather than deal with my post--showing a bondage of the will to sin before conversion (no matter how that conversion happens) you have chosen to change the topic and, again, argue against something I was never arguing in the first place.

These non-sequitur arguments are really becoming frustrating because you don't deal with the argument at hand. One might assume this is the case because you can't defend your position.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

No blessing?

You are completely missing the point of my argument--and that is, perhaps, on purpose. Rather than deal with my post--showing a bondage of the will to sin before conversion (no matter how that conversion happens) you have chosen to change the topic and, again, argue against something I was never arguing in the first place.

These non-sequitur arguments are really becoming frustrating because you don't deal with the argument at hand. One might assume this is the case because you can't defend your position.

The Archangel

My post answered your argument. If unsaved man is enslaved to sin and cannot respond to the gospel unless he first be regenerated, then how do you explain the Ephesians who had not even heard of the Holy Ghost, yet believed and were baptized? Only afterward did Paul lay hands on them and they receive the Spirit.

It answers your argument because it shows unsaved men can indeed believe. They must have free will to do so.

You simply dislike the answer because it contradicts your doctrine.

 

[The Archangel]

No blessing?



My post answered your argument. If unsaved man is enslaved to sin and cannot respond to the gospel unless he first be regenerated, then how do you explain the Ephesians who had not even heard of the Holy Ghost, yet believed and were baptized? Only afterward did Paul lay hands on them and they receive the Spirit.

It answers your argument because it shows unsaved men can indeed believe. They must have free will to do so.

You simply dislike the answer because it contradicts your doctrine.

Sorry I forgot the Blessings.

But you in no way, shape, or form answered my argument--you didn't even engage in a debate.

To Brian's argument you claimed that Genesis 3:22 "proved" that Adam and Eve knew good and evil as a simple cognitive understanding. As I stated, the Hebrew yada doesn't allow for that interpretation because yada implies knowledge by experience. That was your second point.

Your first point was that man still possesses the ability to choose good or evil. I simply stated that Paul would not agree with that. I quoted Ephesians 2 and Titus 3.

And what was your response???? To quote Ephesians 1 (which doesn't say what you suggest, but that's another discussion). You didn't deal with the Titus 3 passage at all.

So, your argument is, in fact, a non-sequitur argument. And, for the record, non-sequitur means "That which does not follow." It would be like saying "Why did the chicken cross the road? Because a vest has no sleeves." The phrase "a vest has no sleeves" is a non-sequitur answer.

Now, please notice, that I am not making an argument for or against Calvinism or Arminianism.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[MB]

My quote is from Romans.

Yes you quoted this as if it was a statement made by God when it is a susposed question asked by men.

You said;

Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?"

The answer is you have and every other person on earth. That is unless you believe it is God's will for men to sin.

You really should quote the whole verse that way the reader knows who is saying what.
MB

 

[Winman]

Archangel

How does Titus 3 argue Calvinism? It argues against.

Titus 3: 3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

I agree with all of this. But I do not see this as saying that a man is first regenerated to believe. You do not like Ephesians 1:13, but it very specifically tells the order of events in salvation. First a person hears the word of God (the gospel), then believes, then receives the Spirit. And I showed you in Acts 19 where the Ephesians indeed first heard Paul preaching, then believed and were baptized, and then afterward received the Spirit. You may not like that, but that is what the passage clearly teaches. Titus 3 does not mention the order of events in salvation whatsoever, as neither does Ephesians chapter 2. But Ephesians 1:13 does.

And I have showed you Galatians 3:2 several times.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

You can't believe or have faith in something you have never heard of, so obviously you have to hear the word of God first to believe.

And this is my problem with the belief that God regenerates a person to believe. Because it makes the word of God unneccesary. If God simply chooses to make a person believe, why are the scriptures necessary?

But if faith comes by hearing the word of God, then the scriptures are necessary.

And whether you like it or not, John 5 clearly teaches that the dead can hear the word of God.

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

Look, I have seen several times where Calvinists have been asked where the scriptures say a man is first regenerated to believe. You cannot answer this because it is not shown. But that a man first hears the word of God, then believes, and then receives the Spirit is shown MANY times, as with the example of the Ephesians in Acts 19.

 

[Havensdad]

Yes you quoted this as if it was a statement made by God when it is a susposed question asked by men.

Actually, it is a question posed, by Paul, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to demonstrate a person with objections such as yours.

You said;

The answer is you have and every other person on earth. That is unless you believe it is God's will for men to sin.

Actually, that is not the answer. If that was the answer, Paul would have said that. He didn't. Instead he says "Who are YOU, oh man, to answer back to God?"

He then goes on to say that God has the right to make one vessel for good (honorable) purposes, and another for bad (dishonorable) purposes.

THAT is the answer; you know, the one from scripture...:tonofbricks: