Total Depravity...

[reformedbeliever]

Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Then why were the mighty works not done so they could repent?

How then do you reconsile the verses that state blindness and hardening come AFTER they reject Gods revealed truth. At which point (AFTER their rejection) God gives them over to...the lie and NOT before.

(Romans 1:18-32, 2 Thes 2:2-12, and the parallelsim of Eph 4:17-19 with the other two) For starters.

They were actually blinded in eternity past.... they were long ago marked out for this condemnation.

 

[skypair]

I wasn't talking about Noah being dead but those who taught him the truths of God.

Huh? Dead, lost men can lead others to salvation?? I really question this line of reasoning, allan.

No, I showed you were belief IS Faith and not turned into faith. You still haven't given any scriptures which state or insinuate God turns the actions that ones does according to belief into faith

Webdog posted one "If thou believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt be saved [after believing, right]."

skypair

 

[npetreley]

Then why were the mighty works not done so they could repent?

IMO, that's a killer question and it totally refutes the idea of foreseen faith. Jesus is saying here that God knew in advance that if He had done miracles in these places (including even Sodom), they would have repented. So why didn't God elect them on the basis of their foreseen faith which they would have had if God had done things differently?

 

[reformedbeliever]

It wasn't part of His master plan was it?

 

[skypair]

Then why were the mighty works not done so they could repent?

Kinda obvious, isn't it? It was not Christ's TIME yet. TIME, not election, is the clear issue here.

skypair

 

[Allan]

Hear from God - believe - receive faith is not the basics of salvation?

Again NO.
Hear from God - believe - receive salvation... Yes. That is scirptural. Believe THEN receive faith - STILL has not been shown scripturally

Not true. AFTER God thought to destroy all men (6:7), THEN Noah found grace in His eyes (6:8). To me, Gen 6:7-8 parallels 6:12-13. Same pattern. Gen 6:12-13 says God found ALL corrupt (6:12), then He warned to Noah (6:13). Gen 6:13 explains HOW Noah found grace in God's eyes. This tells us when and how Noah believed and received faith. Do you see what I mean?

Yet that is not what the scriptures say.
Man was in the dispensation of his conscience (not law as in Moses nor command as in Adam).
If all mans thoughts (as in every individual instead of the general sense of mankind) were continually upon evil. Do you believe the infants, children, and youth were continually comtimplating the next evil deed and action.
Your wooden literal meaning looses all substance just in that sense. But when you add to that the rest of the scripture you see 'Men' in context refers to mankind as a whole but not specifically every single man.

Now let us look at the next verse in light of about 7 other translations:

NLT - Gen 6:9 - This is the history of Noah and his family. Noah was a righteous man, the only blameless man living on earth at the time. He consistently followed God's will and enjoyed a close relationship with him.

NIV - Gen 6:9 - This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

ESV - Gen 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
English Standard Version

NASB - Gen 6:9 - These are {the records of} the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

RSV - Gen 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

ASV - Gen 6:9 - These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, [and] perfect in his generations: Noah walked with God.

Young - Gen 6:9 - These [are] births of Noah: Noah [is] a righteous man; perfect he hath been among his generations; with God hath Noah walked habitually.

I can take you to the Greek and show you the same thing these 7 other translations state.
Noah was blameless, righteous and consistantly walked with God during the time God looked and saw mans heart was upon evil.

I wasn't there and it just very well may be that Noah was the ONLY person left walking with God (including his wife, sons, and sons wives for they did not find favor). And much like Enoch, God removed him (Noah) from harms way. Actaully, he is the only other person ever (other than Enoch) whom the scriptures state "he walked with God.

Anyway, after it speaks of Noah relationship to God the scripture state "and God looked upon the Earth and it was corrupt...filled with violence." AND THEN God speaks to warn Noah and Noah responds to that warning by building an Ark of Gopher wood.

So now you are appealing to "election??"

When and where did I use the term 'election'??

 

[reformedbeliever]

Kinda obvious, isn't it? It was not Christ's TIME yet. TIME, not election, is the clear issue here.

skypair

I'm going to take a chance and respond to you sky. Lets try to keep it civil ok?

Abraham was saved by faith. Christ's time has nothing to do with it.

The doctrine of "prevenient grace" suggests that God really wants all people to receive salvation, and that He is really "doing all He can" to get the job done. Arminians suggest that God weeps over all lost souls, and that He sends His prevenient grace to all of them, just hoping that some of them will respond. But the God of the Bible is very different from this! Here we see in Matthew 11 that God *knew* what it would take for many people to repent and be saved, and nevertheless *withheld* it! That doesn't sound like God is "doing all He can" to me. http://www.biblelighthouse.com/sovereignty/prevenient.htm

 

[webdog]

Then why were the mighty works not done so they could repent?

The Bible is silent on what "mighty works" may have been done. At any rate, they rejected whatever truth they had, and God bound them over to their unbelief.

Why didn't the disciples believe Jesus when He said He would die and rise again in three days? They were with Him every day for 3 years...and "elect". They witnessed so many miraculous events, John says they can't all be put into books. What was their problem?

 

[reformedbeliever]

The Bible is silent on what "mighty works" may have been done. At any rate, they rejected whatever truth they had, and God bound them over to their unbelief.

Why didn't the disciples believe Jesus when He said He would die and rise again in three days? They were with Him every day for 3 years...and "elect".

If God wants all to be saved and He foreknew that they would have repented if the works had been done......... then why didn't He do the works web?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Why did He bind them if He knew what it would take for them to believe?

 

[Rippon]

It was the Lord's will that the folks from T&S would not be given repentance , and faith . They were not His elect .

 

[Allan]

Then why were the mighty works not done so they could repent?

Because they already had all the light they needed to repent but rejected it.
God can show mircles upon miricles and marvelous wonders to people until they will repent. In essense He can brow beat them into submission.
Yet God does not desire to save this way.
Recieving the truth/believing Gods truths is the way God brings us into His salvation.

God could have done all those power miricles in those cities that were destroyed. But God does not do miricles and such to bring people to salvation but to authinticate His messenger. It WASN"T actually about the miricles but in truth it was about the one who DID the miracles. IF these were done in those cities, they would have repented. IOW- They would have known who I was and repented, but since you will not accept me and my works your judgment remains just like thiers did for their rejection. (read the whole thing and compare it to what I said- it is an interesting read)

So God did give them the same opportunity and gave them truth to believe. And they stayed in their unbelief.

They were actually blinded in eternity past.... they were long ago marked out for this condemnation.

Brother seriously, no where in scripture does it say people are blinded in eternity past.
If however you mean that in Eternity Past God knew He would blind them for their unbelief after their rejection, then I agree.

Other than that, you need to show biblical support.

 

[webdog]

If God wants all to be saved and He foreknew that they would have repented if the works had been done......... then why didn't He do the works web?

Who knows? Why didn't He create every man for Heaven? We can't know.
Still, what does that show you about man and his relation to God when even Jesus' own disciples didn't believe Him AFTER all of the miraculous things done? Should He have done greater things than raise the dead? Walk on water? Heal the blind? Talk with more dead OT saints? What?
That just goes to show you the abilities man has been given, to deny or reject truth. His own disciples rejected truth. There is no such thing as "irresistable" anything.

 

[Allan]

Huh? Dead, lost men can lead others to salvation?? I really question this line of reasoning, allan.

According to scripture a dead, lost man walked with God and did not die and another one was saved from global destruction. But who said anything about salvation... You really need to stop adding to what I am saying.
I said they taught him a the ways of the Lord.

Webdog posted one "If thou believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, thou shalt be saved [after believing, right]."

skypair

That what scriptue says.
Now show me wher it says... and thier belief was turned into faith.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Because they already had all the light they needed to repent but rejected it.
God can show mircles upon miricles and marvelous wonders to people until they will repent. In essense He can brow beat them into submission.
Yet God does not desire to save this way.
Recieving the truth/believing Gods truths is the way God brings us into His salvation.

God could have done all those power miricles in those cities that were destroyed. But God does not do miricles and such to bring people to salvation but to authinticate His messenger. It WASN"T actually about the miricles but in truth it was about the one who DID the miracles. IF these were done in those cities, they would have repented. IOW- They would have known who I was and repented, but since you will not accept me and my works your judgment remains just like thiers did for their rejection. (read the whole thing and compare it to what I said- it is an interesting read)

So God did give them the same opportunity and gave them truth to believe. And they stayed in their unbelief.


Brother seriously, no where in scripture does it say people are blinded in eternity past.
If however you mean that in Eternity Past God knew He would blind them for their unbelief after their rejection, then I agree.

Other than that, you need to show biblical support.

You have to admit Allan, that He obviously knew what it would take for them to repent... and He didn't do it.

I believe His foreknowledge as in foresight is binding upon men.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Who knows? Why didn't He create every man for Heaven? We can't know.
Still, what does that show you about man and his relation to God when even Jesus' own disciples didn't believe Him AFTER all of the miraculous things done? Should He have done greater things than raise the dead? Walk on water? Heal the blind? Talk with more dead OT saints? What?
That just goes to show you the abilities man has been given, to deny or reject truth. His own disciples rejected truth. There is no such thing as "irresistable" anything.

But I thought He wanted all men to be saved? No, you know what I believe...

 

[webdog]

You have to admit Allan, that He obviously knew what it would take for them to repent... and He didn't do it.

Isn't this same notion true even today with everyone in hell? I would say it's safe to say we know what it would take for everyone in hell to repent...another chance. I believe the same thing is true with T&S.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Isn't this same notion true even today with everyone in hell? I would say it's safe to say we know what it would take for everyone in hell to repent...another chance. I believe the same thing is true with T&S.

No. When they are in hell it is too late.

 

[Allan]

If God wants all to be saved and He foreknew that they would have repented if the works had been done......... then why didn't He do the works web?

Because He is soveriegn in what is alotted to men concerning the truths revealed. But He gives the same truths that lead to repentance in differing forms. Some small and some great but all revealed by God that if they believe they might be saved.

It doesn't matter if you one know ONE truth or see all the miricals Jesus did which Identified Him as a man of God. God gives all that is needed and it is HIS gracefilled decision to give more or no more.

 

[MB]

Righteous faith of Christ?? EDITTED by me... sorry... Not even close.

No where in the Gospels does it EVER speak of Christs faith. Jesus spoke of THEIR faith making them whole and healing them NOT His. He worked in the people the miricles of God according to THEIR Faith IN Him.

That depends on which Bible version you happen to use.

Just to name a few, for starters.

In the OT it (again) NEVER once speaks of the Redeemers Faith saving them but it DOES speak of those who have faith in His (the Redeemers) atoning work will be cleansed and saved.

The problem with that is the atonement hadn't yet been paid for by Christ. OT saints had to sacrifice for atonement and they were not given the Holy Spirit to dwell with in.

Let us back up for a second to you rendering of Gal 2:16.
The Greek allows for the [of] in the faith [of] Jesus to be synonomously and interchangably used with [IN]. The [of] when utilized in the KJV is used when speaking to the object of our faith (or better faith's object), but when speaking of the action of our faith they use the word [in]. Look at it again and you will see I am right.

If so then then they would have a hard time explaining it correctly.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It doesn't make sense to say "even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith in Jesus Christ" I admit that I don't have a degree in Greek but that is really bad grammar. If it were as you say then why not just say (Even we have believed that we might be justified by our faith in Christ) The KJV says, in Jesus, and of Jesus. I'm not convinced what you say is correct.
Even our faith is a product of God. Man doesn't have any in Christ until it is given him through hearing the gospel. I believe scripture is crystal clear on this. We cannot save our selves.
I've been accused of being a Calvinist because of believing this but I reject Calvinism. If "of " means "in' then why wasn't it used in both places in the KJV?

Please show where scripture states it takes perfect faith to save or even insinuates such...a view.
Scripture says faith the size of a mustard seed (immature, beginning, or imperfect faith) can move mountains. It is the same analogy Jesus uses about the seeds (mustard seeds) cast forth being the least grew to the greatest of all.

Do you agree that we wear the righteousness of Christ? Do you agree that Christ and everything about Him is righteously perfect. As far as Christ having perfect faith the human side of Christ certainly had it because He couldn't be our example with out it.

Both of these scriptures speak to the salvation of these two by THEIR faith NOT Jesus. Are you saying THEY had perfect faith outside of Christ.

Thomas didn't believe until he touched Christ after His resurrection.
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

It's interesting that Thomas could see all that he could see and still have doubtless faith. I think he did believe but was always in doubt. Christ wanted him to believe and this above is what took place. Perfect faith is doubtless. After touching Christ Thomas was completely convinced by Christ and had the faith of Christ because Christ gave it to him. We are not saved with a doubtless faith. Please show me where scripture says we are. Show where it says we can doubt that Christ is who he says he is and still be saved. Our faith is always in doubt because we aren't perfect. Now if you had the faith of a mustard seed then you could move mountains just with your faith. Perfect faith is what Christ was speaking about in the mustard seed parable. He knew none of them had it because Christ hadn't given to them yet.

It is not faith the maintains our salvation. We are saved (past tense) by faith, not we are continuing in salvation as long as faith hold out. We are saved because of the promise of God through the work of Jesus Christ to any who will believe and at THAT moment they are sealed in such a manner as to never be lost again. We continue in the faith (noun) and our faith (verb) grows greater and greater through trials and testing (James 1). Faith is the means through which salvation comes, NOT the reason salvation is maintained.

That is all I will say on this. I know it is your understanding, so go in peace and we will agree that we disagree. :1_grouphug:

I never said it was necessary for anything but Salvation however if what you say here is true then why is it the true saints keep the faith?
Rev 14:12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
I keep mine doesn't everyone?
MB