The Eternal Purpose of God in Christ

[PreachTony]

Seriously, what's the deal with the French? :smilewinkgrin:

This quote is quite full of rubbish, mon ami. We do not believe God desires to see people suffer, but in His holiness, sin can not go unpunished.

I agree that sin must be punished. But in your theology God has determined to punish men before they are ever born because He never intends to save them. He truly creates people with no other intention than to punish them eternally. Yet somehow the Calvinist says God is not the one who condemns these people. You cannot have the election of one group to salvation without recognizing the similar election of the remainder to damnation. At least some cals will own up to the necessary existence of double predestination.

Then His desires are not met then, are they? If God truly desired all to be saved, then what about the babies, the invalids, the women and children, the men that perished in the flood? Protestant asked this and it is a very good question that really needs a response.

What about the antedeluvians?

You're making it sound as if God's saving love is only true if people survive. That's totally false per scripture. Jesus Himself addressed this when people tried to cast others as worse sinners simply because they suffered worse calamity. Do you think the thief on the cross was not saved, simply because he still died? No. I'm not going to try to act like I know God's intention with each and every person, but to hear some Calvinists talk, you would think that the entirety of humanity prior to Jesus's incarnation was sentenced to eternal damnation simply because of when they lived.

First off, salvation is not an opportunity, not a chance, but a calling, a gift. What about those who died in remote areas one hour after Jesus did? Did they go to heaven just because they did not get a chance to hear about Jesus?

See my answer above.

If God truly desires to save everybody, but He just sits backs and watches MANY going to hell, then you have impugned His sovereignity. He can not violate their 'free will', so He sits back, really wanting to save them, yet He can not. That makes God such the failure. :tear:

The scriptures say God commands all men everywhere to repent, but your side says man can only repent if God makes him repent. So God tells everyone to repent, only allows a few to repent, and then blames man for not doing what God never gave man the ability to do.

Consider this: There are a lot of parents who did not want their children to do drugs. Yet they did. The parent could have stopped them, but only by infringing on their ability to do anything at all, and forcing them to stay in a "safe" place. Since parents want their children to grow and learn, they don't keep them hidden (for the most part). A parent who wants the best for their child, yet does not force choices on them, and then their children go astray...do you call that parent a failure?

Repentance is a gift of God monsieur. Rest assured if He desired they repent, they would have repented and been spared the second death.

So the scripture is wrong when it says God commands all men everywhere to repent? Or is this another case of the Bible saying "all men" but actually only meaning "the Elect?" It's so confusing when the Bible obfuscates its own meaning.

Please stop with the force word.

Why? Does it bother you to recognize the obvious conclusion of Calvinism: that no man is saved unless God irresistibly draws him and forces salvation upon him? If you irresistibly move something, does it have any say in where it is moved, or do you force it to move to where you desire?

If God did not intervene in our lives in the loving fashion He did, we would still be lost.

Here's the rub, SG...us non-Cals are just as thankful for God's intervention as you Cals are. We just do not buy the theology that God forces salvation or damnation upon mankind. We read the invitations as events that man must answer. Your side seems to read those invitations as events that man cannot even comprehend unless God irresistibly moves them to understand and answer.

He efficaciously removed the sin from His sheep by sending His Son to atone for their sins. He was/is the sacrificial Lamb, the Scapegoat, the Sinbearer.

So once again the scripture is unclear. When John said "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" he should've said "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the Elect only." 1 John 2:2 reads "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," but it should actually read "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the Elect only."

God first chooses them and then they choose Him. He first loved them, they they reciprocate that love. If God loved everybody, nobody dies lost.

Again, you're applying a definition of God's saving love that we non-Cals do not hold to. You seem to be trying to cast us as Universalists. We believe that God must move first. Having "free will" does not mean that man can save himself. God has to act on us first. Seed is planted through the preached gospel, conviction falls on a man or woman, and they stand in a proverbial valley of decision. They have the free will only to accept or reject His call. This does not make them the provider of the gift, only the recipient.

If He can not overcome someone's 'free will', then His sovereinity has been impugned, mon ami.

So in your eyes God is only sovereign if he never allows anyone to make a decision other then Himself, right? Every single thing that happens is foreordained of God. That's the only way I see it from your words that God can be viewed as sovereign. God's hand must be in everything that happens. Never mind that wind, fire and earthquake that Elijah experienced that the scripture says God was not in.

 

[Protestant]

I'm not one to casually throw around the "P" [Predestination]word. I believe that God knows who will and who won't accept Him. This does not mean that God forces that acceptance on anyone.

How many times have we heard our Pelagian/Arminian opponents declare, ‘God will not force man to love Him. He allows man the freedom to choose.’

I challenge them to bring forward one Christian witness who will testify that God either ‘forced’ that Christian to love Him or ‘forced’ His unwanted love on that Christian.

Unless a witness or two can be brought forward to prove their hypothesis, their hypothesis must be considered fiction, not worthy of a Christian’s belief.

For one of the key attributes by which we may identify true believers is ‘belief of the truth.’ (2 Thess. 2:13)

In fact, this very thread has that goal in mind: the distinguishing between truth and fiction.

Only in Calvinism does God apparently desire for men to go to Hell. We believe that God does not wish for anyone to go to Hell, but instead God desires that all men repent.

In your previous quote you acknowledge ‘God knows who will and who won’t accept Him.’

You now propose that it is God’s serious intention that none perish.

I ask: How is it possible for a rational, all-wise, all-knowing God, who knows the dire outcome of the many who reject Christ, to then seriously intend that which is He infallibly knows will never happen: i.e. the salvation of unbelievers?

If, for example, when you were pursuing the one who was hopefully your wife-to-be, you had infallible knowledge she would never say, ‘yes’, would you not have turned your attentions on another, rather than ceaselessly continue to pursue her affections?

Or would you have disregarded the truth of the matter, choosing instead to believe a lie (that she will repent and consent to marriage, given enough time and pleading)?

The Gospel is the means by which Christ calls His Church.

Within that net are both good and bad fish.

Both the Elect and Reprobate have the same Gospel preached: Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not an invitation, but a command.

The Gospel is the revelation of the way of salvation.

It is also, by default, the revelation of damnation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.

The Reprobate will not believe. They freely reject Christ.

Their unbelief is their fault, due to their sin and love of it.

They are predestined to be the recipients of that which they rightly deserve: damnation.

Please remember God is under no obligation to change their hearts and wills to obey and love Him.

Grace is owed no man.

But because salvation is all of God’s grace, our merciful God had purposed in eternity to give some particular sinful, lost men that which they did not deserve: saving grace which does not fail in its purpose to save.

In the imaginary minds of our Pelagian/Arminian friends they imagine a world whereby God seriously intends salvation based on the will and power of man to do that which is good, right and holy.

By leaving the ultimate decision of salvation in the hands of sinful deaf, blind and dead God-haters they believe they have made their God to be more just, more loving and more sovereign.

They really believe that.

But, in fact, they made the God of the Bible devoid of common sense and wisdom, with no freedom to do as He pleases with His creation.

God is now ruled by man.

All in the name of ‘love.’

And according to Tony, (and many others), God loved those He drowned in the Flood, as well as those awaiting the Lake of Fire.

With a ‘love’ like that, I would hate to discover the ‘wrath’ of God.

Is it really with grave misgivings and sadness that Jesus pronounces, I never knew you. Depart from me ye that work iniquity?

Can the Reader not see how great are the misapprehensions of our adversaries?

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK

Do all reject Him?

yes

Have you rejected Him?

I was in complete rebellion to God until He effectually and irresistibly drew me

Or did you have a choice?

No I had no choice.....I was bound by sin and in rebellion...then God regenerated me and making me a new creation.

 

[Iconoclast]

Protestant

Another fine post revealing how the truth stands against all manner of futile rejections

In the imaginary minds of our Pelagian/Arminian friends they imagine a world whereby God seriously intends salvation based on the will and power of man to do that which is good, right and holy.

By leaving the ultimate decision of salvation in the hands of sinful deaf, blind and dead God-haters they believe they have made their God to be more just, more loving and more sovereign.

They really believe that.

But, in fact, they made the God of the Bible devoid of common sense and wisdom, with no freedom to do as He pleases with His creation.

God is now ruled by man.

All in the name of ‘love.’

And according to Tony, (and many others), God loved those He drowned in the Flood, as well as those awaiting the Lake of Fire.

With a ‘love’ like that, I would hate to discover the ‘wrath’ of God.

Is it really with grave misgivings and sadness that Jesus pronounces, I never knew you. Depart from me ye that work iniquity?

Can the Reader not see how great are the misapprehensions of our adversaries?

Yes....Paul should have declared the love of God is revealed against all the truth suppressors and their evil deeds...if these other ideas were to be entertained...:laugh::laugh:

 

[PreachTony]

How many times have we heard our Pelagian/Arminian opponents declare, ‘God will not force man to love Him. He allows man the freedom to choose.’

I challenge them to bring forward one Christian witness who will testify that God either ‘forced’ that Christian to love Him or ‘forced’ His unwanted love on that Christian.

Unless a witness or two can be brought forward to prove their hypothesis, their hypothesis must be considered fiction, not worthy of a Christian’s belief.

Then what is "Irresistible Grace" if not a forcing of God's grace on someone? The person being "graced" has no option but to accept the grace.

For one of the key attributes by which we may identify true believers is ‘belief of the truth.’ (2 Thess. 2:13)

In fact, this very thread has that goal in mind: the distinguishing between truth and fiction.

What are you saying here, Protestant? Are you implying that we non-Calvinists are not "true believers?" I sincerely hope not, but some clarification would be nice.

In your previous quote you acknowledge ‘God knows who will and who won’t accept Him.’

You now propose that it is God’s serious intention that none perish.

I ask: How is it possible for a rational, all-wise, all-knowing God, who knows the dire outcome of the many who reject Christ, to then seriously intend that which is He infallibly knows will never happen: i.e. the salvation of unbelievers?

According to your side, God does this all the time. You say He commands all men everywhere to repent, even though He knows they can only repent if He moves them to repent.

If, for example, when you were pursuing the one who was hopefully your wife-to-be, you had infallible knowledge she would never say, ‘yes’, would you not have turned your attentions on another, rather than ceaselessly continue to pursue her affections?

Or would you have disregarded the truth of the matter, choosing instead to believe a lie (that she will repent and consent to marriage, given enough time and pleading)?

Having never had access to infallible knowledge, I cannot reasonably answer this question.

The Gospel is the means by which Christ calls His Church.

Within that net are both good and bad fish.

No non-Cal would argue that. We agree that the gospel is a necessity.

Both the Elect and Reprobate have the same Gospel preached: Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is not an invitation, but a command.

The Gospel is the revelation of the way of salvation.

It is also, by default, the revelation of damnation.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damned.

The Reprobate will not believe. They freely reject Christ.

Their unbelief is their fault, due to their sin and love of it.

They are predestined to be the recipients of that which they rightly deserve: damnation.

If they are free to reject Christ, then how are they not free to accept Christ?

Please remember God is under no obligation to change their hearts and wills to obey and love Him.

Grace is owed no man.

But because salvation is all of God’s grace, our merciful God had purposed in eternity to give some particular sinful, lost men that which they did not deserve: saving grace which does not fail in its purpose to save.

Then why did God not provide that loving grace to all? He had the power, obviously. Yet for some reason, per your theology, without and condition, He chose to hate some enough to elect them unto damnation, just as He chose to love some enough to elect them to salvation.

In the imaginary minds of our Pelagian/Arminian friends they imagine a world whereby God seriously intends salvation based on the will and power of man to do that which is good, right and holy.

By leaving the ultimate decision of salvation in the hands of sinful deaf, blind and dead God-haters they believe they have made their God to be more just, more loving and more sovereign.

They really believe that.

But, in fact, they made the God of the Bible devoid of common sense and wisdom, with no freedom to do as He pleases with His creation.

God is now ruled by man.

All in the name of ‘love.’

Thank you for that effective slandering of the opposition. I'm guilty of the same thing, so good on ya'.

And according to Tony, (and many others), God loved those He drowned in the Flood, as well as those awaiting the Lake of Fire.

With a ‘love’ like that, I would hate to discover the ‘wrath’ of God.

Like SG, you are acting as though God's love is only seen through Him allowing physical survival.

Can the Reader not see how great are the misapprehensions of our adversaries?

Again, if only non-Calvinist actually comprehended the word of God... never mind that some of them have spent their lives in pursuit of the truth of God's word...they'd all be Calvinists if only they would actually understand the Bible.

 

[DHK]

Obviously, I don't know your relative, but how do you know that he wasn't saved. Was it because he never said a sinner's prayer or walked the aisle?

No, he was a devout Roman Catholic trusting both in the RCC and his own self-righteousness. He was what most would call a "good" man, but not saved. His standard of morality was higher than most Christians that I know.

I was saved 25 years ago at the age of 38. Until about 3 years before that I had never darkened the door of a church since I was a child other than a high Anglican one, mostly for weddings and funerals. Then my wife decided that our daughters ought to go to junior Sunday School (I don't know why because she wasn't a Christian either) and since the local Anglican church was gloomy and the vicar miserable, we sent them to the Free Church in the village, which was ex- Plymouth Brethren.
From time to time the children would put on a sort of performance in the church when they would sing songs and show what they'd learned, and on those occasions we would go along to watch. The people there were very friendly and it was obvious to me that some of them had something that I didn't have. After a while we were invited to go along to a home Bible Study and a lot of it made sense to me.

We started going to regular meetings of the church and at one of them, my wife was suddenly convicted of sin, called for one of the elders and trusted in Christ. I was quite shocked. I didn't really know anything about that sort of thing. But I rather envied her sudden conversion and I began to read my Bible and pray more than ever. Eventually I decided I did believe, announced this to the elders, made a statement before the church, and I was in the club.

Some months later, since neither my wife nor I had killed anyone, we were asked if we wanted to be baptized. Again, I was a bit shocked because I'd been 'christened' as a baby and didn't think I needed anything else. However, when I started reading about it, it became clear that Believers' baptism was Scriptural, so we agreed.

At the baptism, we were supposed to say a few words about how our lives had changed since becoming Christians. As I sat down to think what I was going to say, I realised that actually I hadn't changed at all. I was still a liar; I still used bad language, was proud and arrogant and a load of other stuff. At that point, two days before my baptism, I went down on my knees and repented of my sins and begged God to forgive me for Christ's sake.

So when was I saved? Was it when I saw the truth of the Scriptures at the Bible study? Was it when I declared myself saved in the church? Or was it alone with God, two days before I was baptized? I don't know, and frankly, I don't much care. What matters is this: once I was blind, and now I see (John 9:25).

I know several people who can't remember a time when they didn't love Jesus because they were saved as little children. These people lead lovely Christian lives and I see no reason to doubt their salvation just because they don't have a testimony.

I appreciate your testimony. The truth of the matter is you know when you believed. Whether the first or the second time they were just a matter of months apart. You can point to that time when the Lord was working in your life and a time when you believed.

My wife was raised a Presbyterian, saved as a child around the age of 7. She remembers the event. Maybe she was 8, doesn't know sure. But she does know for sure that there was a time when she knew she was a sinner in need of a Savior and she asked her mother to explain salvation more clearly to her.

Childhood decisions are difficult for many. Many times a child "asks Jesus into his heart" in order to please his parents, or his friend, the pastor, etc. Then it is not Christ that is the object of their faith but the parents, the one whom they are trying to please. They grow up in rebellion against God.
Prayer doesn't save. Faith in Christ alone saves. It is Christ that does the saving. But if the element of faith is not there one cannot be saved.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

There are some Calvinists that are afraid to give a testimony. They cannot say "I believe." Why? They consider "faith" as a work. They believe in a warped view of sovereignty. They are chosen they say. If they are chosen without faith, then how do they know they are chosen? They don't and thus have a problem with eternal security.

2Ti_1:12 For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There are some Calvinists that are afraid to give a testimony. They cannot say "I believe."

I have never met a Calvinist like that. Come to that, I've never met an evangelical Christian like that. It's Anglicans and Methodists who don't have a testimony.

In 2013, I heard Alistair Begg give his testimony at a Christian conference where he was speaking. Just in case you don't know of him he is the Senior Pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland (quite a large congregation, I understand) and a Baptist.
He grew up in a Christian home and has no recollection of a time when he didn't love Christ. You cannot judge a Christian by his testimony.

'In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother' (1 John 3:10).

 

[Protestant]

Then what is "Irresistible Grace" if not a forcing of God's grace on someone? The person being "graced" has no option but to accept the grace.

Irresistible grace is God’s irresistible love.

Our God has purposefully created humans whom He wills to shower with His unconditional love.

It is those undeserving depraved sinners whom God unconditionally elects for salvation.

The decree of Election flows from God’s love, mercy, compassion and grace.

He does not elect sinners based on foreknowledge of what they will do.

Paul’s example of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9 teaches this divine truth.

The Lord had made the choice to love Jacob and hate Esau before they had done anything to deserve the distinction.

It was a decree made in eternity (as are all of God’s decrees) before they were born, before either one could prove himself in any way to be a person of good integrity or a person of evil disposition.

Paul makes the point that it is not the person who dictates God’s choice.

Rather it is God’s purpose according to election which dictates His choice.

Had foreseen faith been the cause of God’s loving and electing Jacob, the Apostle would have declared, “So it is not of him who runneth, but of him whom God foresees faith.”

Another Hard to Grasp Truth

It is one thing to accept the fact that God has willed to bestow saving grace upon Jacob.

It is an even more difficult thing to accept the fact that God’s purpose for Esau was to intentionally pass him by when dispensing saving grace, choosing instead to harden him in his sins as a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction.

Remember, Esau had not yet committed evil when God declared His hatred for him.

His hatred was based on His will of reprobation in order that the power and righteousness of His justice might be declared in all who have not had their sins forgiven in Christ.

Because Jacob and Esau were from the same physical seed (Isaac) and of the same natural mother, born at the same time, there was nothing of significance which differentiated them.

They were both fallen in Adam.

Yet according to the will of God’s good pleasure, He chose one for salvation and the other for damnation.

This truth is stated in verse 18:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

The reasons for God’s choices are hidden from us.

However, we know all things which come to pass are ultimately to glorify and magnify the Lord God Almighty who decrees all things with wisdom and righteousness, all for an excellent purpose.

The Elect will magnify the mercy and love of God, to the praise of His glorious grace.

The Reprobate will magnify the wrath and hatred of God, to the praise of His glorious justice.

No, Tony, our God does not torture, for eternity, those whom He loves.

 

[Protestant]

In 2013, I heard Alistair Begg give his testimony at a Christian conference where he was speaking. Just in case you don't know of him he is the Senior Pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland (quite a large congregation, I understand) and a Baptist.

Cleveland is blessed, indeed, to have Pastor Begg!

 

[DHK]

I have never met a Calvinist like that. Come to that, I've never met an evangelical Christian like that. It's Anglicans and Methodists who don't have a testimony.

Consider Icon's testimony above:

I was in complete rebellion to God until He effectually and irresistibly drew me

No I had no choice.....I was bound by sin and in rebellion...then God regenerated me and making me a new creation.

In my words he is saying: "God forced me to be saved; I had no choice. There was nothing I could do about it."

It almost sounds like belief or faith is out of the question. Calvinists are monergists and not synergists, and do not want to give any hint in a testimony of "cooperating" with God, even though faith is not a "work."
Therein lies the problem.

, I heard Alistair Begg give his testimony at a Christian conference where he was speaking. Just in case you don't know of him he is the Senior Pastor of Parkside Church in Cleveland (quite a large congregation, I understand) and a Baptist.
He grew up in a Christian home and has no recollection of a time when he didn't love Christ. You cannot judge a Christian by his testimony.

'In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: whoever does not practise righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother' (1 John 3:10).

The statement "I don't know of at time when I didn't love Jesus" (or have been a Christian all my life), is what I hear from Catholics, Anglicans, people that have grown up in cults like Mormons, etc. A true believer in Christ recognizes that he is a sinner in need of a Savior. He is criminal before God. He is in need of a Savior. If there is no time when one has not realized himself in that condition and repented and turned to Christ, then how can he be saved?
There must be a turning point; change of some sort in person's life.

 

[Iconoclast]

Consider Icon's testimony above:

In my words he is saying: "God forced me to be saved; I had no choice. There was nothing I could do about it."

It almost sounds like belief or faith is out of the question. Calvinists are monergists and not synergists, and do not want to give any hint in a testimony of "cooperating" with God, even though faith is not a "work."
.

As usual.....that is not what I said or meant at all......once again you try and answer for me and invent what you would like me to say.

Your lack of understanding of the biblical teaching is the root cause.....I am sure every Cal knows exactly what I meant and it was not what you said...:laugh::laugh:

Salvation is of the Lord there is no cooperation in order to be saved

 

[Protestant]

There must be a turning point; change of some sort in person's life.

We finally find a common ground.

A new nature alive in Christ is radically different than the dead carnal nature.

The new nature now loves what it once loathed: holiness, sincere concern for the things of God, including obedience and divine truth, as well as a sincere love for the people of God.

It is for these reasons and more that many of us deny the doctrine of the 'Carnal Christian.'

A carnal Christian is an unregenerate Christian who is, in reality, no Christian.

Although I don't doubt the conversion of small children by the sovereign grace of God, I do understand that they have not yet experienced the years of relentless sinning which we much older converts experienced.

As a result their new nature is not as pronounced.

I also believe many of the childhood conversions are bogus, resulting in a state of perpetual backsliding.

 

[Protestant]

As usual.....that is not what I said or meant at all......once again you try and answer for me and invent what you would like me to say.

Your lack of understanding of the biblical teaching is the root cause.....I am sure every Cal knows exactly what I meant and it was not what you said...:laugh::laugh:

I understand you very well, brother Icon. And I concur!

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand you very well, brother Icon. And I concur!

I was resisting God.....reading the Bible to look for mistakes in it.
God showed me I was wrong. ..and He indeed is the true and living God.

But God who is rich in mercy brought me to life. Your posts have not been answered but are instructive to any who want to learn and grow...SG has also posted saving truth despite opposition. Maintain good works and the faithful proclamation of the truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

We finally find a common ground.

A new nature alive in Christ is radically different than the dead carnal nature.

The new nature now loves what it once loathed: holiness, sincere concern for the things of God, including obedience and divine truth, as well as a sincere love for the people of God.

It is for these reasons and more that many of us deny the doctrine of the 'Carnal Christian.'

A carnal Christian is an unregenerate Christian who is, in reality, no Christian.

Although I don't doubt the conversion of small children by the sovereign grace of God, I do understand that they have not yet experienced the years of relentless sinning which we much older converts experienced.

As a result their new nature is not as pronounced.

I also believe many of the childhood conversions are bogus, resulting in a state of perpetual backsliding.

Yes....there is not such thing as a carnal christian. ....they are carnal in the heart.

 

[DHK]

As usual.....that is not what I said or meant at all......once again you try and answer for me and invent what you would like me to say.

Your lack of understanding of the biblical teaching is the root cause.....I am sure every Cal knows exactly what I meant and it was not what you said...:laugh::laugh:

Salvation is of the Lord there is no cooperation in order to be saved

If you use the quote button on your own post, this is what comes up, word for word:

I was in complete rebellion to God until He effectually and irresistibly drew me

No I had no choice.....I was bound by sin and in rebellion...then God regenerated me and making me a new creation.

I never changed a word. It is exactly what you said--your words.

You had no choice (i.e. you were forced).
You made no indication that you put your faith in Christ, but rather that you were unable to believe--you had no choice.

And, if that is the case, then how do you know you are one of the elect?

 

[DHK]

Yes....there is not such thing as a carnal christian. ....they are carnal in the heart.

A Christian whose heart is carnal is a carnal Christian.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you use the quote button on your own post, this is what comes up, word for word:

I never changed a word. It is exactly what you said--your words.

You had no choice (i.e. you were forced).
You made no indication that you put your faith in Christ, but rather that you were unable to believe--you had no choice.

And, if that is the case, then how do you know you are one of the elect?

I know what I said and I stand by what I post it's what you say that you think I said that I don't agree with .
you always twist what we say.
I didn't say anything like what you said in your words that I said....

 

[DHK]

We finally find a common ground.

A new nature alive in Christ is radically different than the dead carnal nature.

The new nature now loves what it once loathed: holiness, sincere concern for the things of God, including obedience and divine truth, as well as a sincere love for the people of God.

It is for these reasons and more that many of us deny the doctrine of the 'Carnal Christian.'

A carnal Christian is an unregenerate Christian who is, in reality, no Christian.

Although I don't doubt the conversion of small children by the sovereign grace of God, I do understand that they have not yet experienced the years of relentless sinning which we much older converts experienced.

As a result their new nature is not as pronounced.

I also believe many of the childhood conversions are bogus, resulting in a state of perpetual backsliding.

I never brought up the doctrine of a carnal nature. That is a different topic.

The question being brought up in this thread is: What about the person who says--"I have been a Christian all my life;" or "I can't remember a time in my life when I became a Christian," etc.

If the only testimony one has as a Christian is that they "have been a Christian all their life," then I question their salvation. That was my point. There must be a time when one recognizes they were a sinner and turned to Christ. There must be change. How can you be a Christian all your life if you were born into this world as an enemy of God, a child of disobedience, separated from God?

 

[Iconoclast]

Saving faith is a God given gift it's part of the salvation that's given freely .
men don't have inherent faith that they put their faith in God men resist God.
God had mercy upon me...gave me a new heart as He brought me from death to life..