Wrong Take On Romans 12:3c

Anybody who wants to be saved will be saved. More misrepresentation. The prejudice on this board is amazing.

 

Then tell us, O great Zorba, King of the Greeks, why is THE faith not of all? What doth the Greek with it's superior words expound unto us poor ignorant Englishmen? Have we been taught here that THE faith is neither personal nor "from God"?

 

I'm not sure it's prejudice. It's more like the inability (or unwillingness) to read. There are countless posts on here from believers in election that state this over and over again. I've stated it several times in several different ways, myself. Yet the free-willers keep repeating the lie anyway.

 

You and I agree on that, and I already knew we would.

I believe Christ died for the banker, if the banker doesn't put his faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, he chose his own way, and it leads to hell.

You believe Christ may have died for the banker, if the banker doesn't put his faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ, God did not enable him to, and he had no choice but to go to hell.

 

You forgot to add that in your scenario, the banker's sins are paid for twice - once by Christ and a second time by the banker in hell.

In the scenario supposedly describing my beliefs, the banker certainly had a choice not to go to hell. He could either go to heaven by being perfect, or he could go by believing on Christ as his substitute. Like I said before, anyone who wants to be saved, will be saved. Please stop the misrepresentations.

 

The bankers sins are paid for once, either by him or by Christ, the banker must choose. The blood of Christ has the power to atone for the sins of the banker, but, if the banker does not accept that, he must make payment on his own. You and I were not born saved, even though Christ died on the cross 2000 years ago, we still had to put our faith in Him to be saved.

So, am I misrepresenting your beliefs when I say God must enable the sinner to want to be saved? I know you believe anyone who wants to be saved will be saved. What makes them want to be saved? That is the question.

I did not decide on my own to be saved. It was the work of the Holy Spirit and the word of God that convinced me.

 

No, you are right that I believe God must enable (regenerate) a sinner before that sinner wants to be saved. What I took issue with is where you said, "he had no choice but to go to hell."

Yes, what makes us want to be saved? That is the question. From your second paragraph above, it appears that we agree on the answer - it is because of God's regenerating work in us.

 

The next post shows it was not misrepresentation but trying to have it both ways.

The Calvinists say one thing then try to cover it up. The two posts above are double talk.

 

"Give the man a seegar for the shot!" BTW, I never claimed to be or even know Zorba, but only claim to be a real redneck (as opposed to the store-bought kind) from KY.

However, the shot is wide of the mark. While this Scripture does tell us that 'all men have not "THE faith", as far as I can tell, it does not tell us as to "why" this is the case. However, as BrotherBob cited early on, another Scripture (Rom. 10:17) tells us that "...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

Certainly "THE faith", as it is termed here, and in Jude, and referring, I believe, to the revealed body of truth God has given us, is "from God". I have never claimed otherwise, and would strongly argue that that is the case. It is "personal", I guess, in that it is for us and to us, in that sense. It is not "personal", in that we have any part in the giving of this revelation.

But my whole point, aside from the emphases I gave (which apparently annoyed you), was merely that "faith" and/or "thy faith" are not exactly the same as "THE faith", and are, in fact, much different. Context, everyone!

BTW, I'd suggest that (David Livingstone's and similar takes notwithstanding) this last verse here, along with John 1:9, John 7:17; Heb. 11:6, Deut. 4:29, Jer. 29:13, and parts of Rom.1, among other scriptures, answers the question of whether or not one "heard' or 'heard enough'. Aso Rom. 10:17 tells us where faith originates, regardless of what Calvinism, Arminianism, monergism, synergism, or any other 'ism', 'asm' or spasm may say.

One might note that here, the "brethren" were uged that "...the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and the endurance of the Christ." Hmmm! Doesn't seem to say anything here about the Lord directing a faith to the hearts, now, does it?

I dunno. Seems clear enough to me.

Ed

 

Bob, I'm not following your conspiracy theory above. What exactly did I try to cover up? It's hard to tell what you are referencing, because the quotes you cite include both Blammo's and my statements.

 

Hello Ed, I like the way you deflected my "shots". You took note of them but you didn't whine about them. I don't have time right now to comment on your comments, I need some time to think about them. I'll get back to you later.

 

(Here you say I misrepresented you by saying you believe that God must pre-choose you or you are lost.)

(Here you say anyone who wants to be saved will be saved and again accuse Blammo of misrepresentation.)

(Here you say what you really believe and that is that God must regenerate your heart before a sinner will even want to be saved and you go ahead and say that the sinner had no choice but to go to hell).

1. Why say I misrepresented you when you believe God must regenerate your heart before you will believe just because I say that you believe you must be pre-chosen?

2. Why say Blammo misrepresented you say the banker certainly had a choice not to go to hell then in the last post you say God must regenerate his heart before he would choice not to go to hell, so if God did not regenerate his heart then the banker would not of had a choice of being saved.

3. You say just the opposite of 1 and 2 that a man must have his heart regenerated by God or he does not have a choice to be saved when in 1 you said anyone who wants to be saved can be saved.

(You are misrepresenting the actual case of what you believe. You believe unless God regenerates a man’s heart so he will have faith then that man is hell bound and does not have a choice to choose to be saved.)

I am not trying to be smart just telling you how what you say comes across to the rest of us.

 

No, he does have the choice to be saved. He can always choose to be perfect. Or he can choose to believe on Christ, if that's what he really wants. (You and I would both agree that a man who fakes belief in Christ and does not really want to be saved, has not truly believed on Christ.)

So all of this really comes down to our differing views of "choice" and "free will". Your view of free will is a libertarian (meaning "unrestricted") and humanistic view. Mine is the Biblical view that accounts for the Fall and the sinful nature of humans.

But it is a misrepresentation to say that I think people have "no choice but to go to hell." Everyone who goes to hell, chooses hell.

 

Your views on the unregenerate are quite strange, and not in line with most calvinists. Most calvinists would state the unregenerate can only choose sin (not being perfect).

Why would an unregenerate person fake belief in Christ?

You have these reversed

 

There is always the option of choosing to be perfect. But no one ever does, right? But it was still a choice, right? We all choose of our own will not to be perfect. C's and non-C's both agree on this point.

And people also have the choice to believe on Christ. But none of us are willing to do that, unless we are first given the gift of regeneration. Now I know that's where you will cry foul and say that's not really a "choice". But compare this to the previous paragraph. Even though people have a choice to not sin (and thus be perfect), no one ever makes that choice - every person that I know has at some point decided to sin. Everyone is a willing sinner. It is their choice. The same principle applies when choosing Christ. Everyone rejects Christ, and everyone would always reject Christ (just like everyone decides to sin), unless God intervenes by regenerating the person to change his nature.

So if you accept the first principle (everyone sins by their own choice; no one is perfect), then you really have no right to call the second principle a "non-choice". You may disagree with the second principle, but you cannot misrepresent it as being a "non-choice".

 

Oh yes, why would a person fake belief in Christ? Oh, there a numerous reasons why someone would do that. To please a family member - i.e., get them off their back. Out of peer pressure, maybe in the context of a youth group.

 

Andy-

I think, as a calvinist, you can't really believe man has the ability to choose not to sin, neither can you believe a man has the ability to choose Christ. You, and other calvinists, have said man has no choice but to sin. According to the calvinist, man does not have the ability to choose Christ. It is in man's nature to reject Christ, therefore, no choice.

I realize you will say the choice is there. I agree, and I also agree the choice comes about through the word of God, and the work of the Holy Spirit. I also agree that man does not seek after God. That is why we who are saved are sent to tell others. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.", "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I have had calvinists tell me the "all" in this verse is referring to the elect. Then what is the meaning of the word "longsuffering"? Why should God exercise His patience, if all He needs to do is "regenerate" the unrepentant individuals?

 

So do you think it is possible for someone to be perfect? I assume your answer to that is "no." Does that make it any less of a choice on their part? Does the fact that 100% of all people choose to sin, and none are perfect, make the choice to be perfect any less real? Like I said, we both agree on this point, I presume.

Now I realize we disagree regarding regeneration preceding faith, and I'm not really interested in debating that at this time. But my point is that you cannot accuse me of believing that man has "no choice to accept Christ" when you believe the exact same premise regarding original sin. The next time you accuse me of that, I will just turn the table and say, "Neither do you think man has a choice to not sin, since not sinning is impossible, and no one has ever been perfect. Ergo, God has not given man a fair choice to not sin, in your view."

 

Andy;
You say we can all choose Christ then you say but we won't unless we first receive regeneration.
What you are saying is we can choose but with the heart we have without regeneration we can't choose Christ. You are saying it just like I have always thought Calvinist were saying it and that is trying to have it both ways.

1. A man can choose Christ, but without regeneration his sinful nature won't let him.

2. After we receive regeneration then we can Choose Christ.

I am sorry but if I were Calvinist I would try to find a better answer than that for this don't make any sense at all. It is double talk.

I mean you are saying; "you can go to Heaven if you want to but you won't want to" What kind of theory is that anyway?

 

Brother Bob, can you choose to be perfect and not sin?