Your Actions Tell What You Are

[johnp.]

James.

Ah, so you think Moses sneaked in during the transfiguration.

No, I never said that did I? I said he stood on top of a mountain blazing light everywhere and you mistook that for 'he sneaked in'? haha! Cool. Is that the measure of the gulf between us?

Moses' disqualification from entering the promised land was only a type of Christians being disqualified from entering the kingdom. The earthly promised land is a picture of the heavenly kingdom to come.

The Promised Land is being born again. Our lives are to be spent in Heaven on a physical earth where men have been designed for.
Moses was not part of the Exodus as those who died in the Wilderness were. A curious event that tranfiguration wasn't it? The script says that Moses and Elijah were seen by the light reflecting off them. I understand how Elijah was solid but I can't see how Moses was but there he was in Israel with his Lord and Master and brother doing what they always did, reflecting His glory.

Moses was treated in the same way all Christians have been and will be until Christ comes back, HEB 11:13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country--a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

Praise be to the Lord.

john.

 

[James_Newman]

The promised land is being born again? Do you have a scripture to back that up?

I have to go home so I will have to read your answer in the morning...

 

[johnp.]

The promised land is being born again? Do you have a scripture to back that up?

Yes of course. PS 95:10 For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways." 11 So I declared on oath in my anger, "They shall never enter my rest."

HEB 4:8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.

MT 11:28 "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

john.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I'm sure you already know there is no verse that emphatically states "Lot lived in sin". A plain reading of the story alludes to this.

No, you have to assume that. Look at your own quotes.

Gen 13:9 Is not the whole land before you? Separate yourself from me. If you take the left hand, then I will go to the right, or if you take the right hand, then I will go to the left."
Gen 13:10 And Lot lifted up his eyes and saw that the Jordan Valley was well watered everywhere like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, in the direction of Zoar. (This was before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.)
Gen 13:11 So Lot chose for himself all the Jordan Valley, and Lot journeyed east. Thus they separated from each other.

Lot was not wrong in choosing the Valley. He was offered a choice. If he would have take the other, then Abraham would have lived there. Lot took one side and Abraham took the other, but it was Abraham who allowed Lot to chose so as to keep peace among the family. So there is nothing establishing any unrighteousness there.

Gen 19:8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof."

Actually, did Lot sin here?
It was commonly known law in many cultures that when a person is under your roof they are under your protection and you are to protect them by any means necessary. It is even established in the Law of God for the Israelites to do the same.
Lot was not rebuked for offering up of two of his virgin daughters in the stead of his guests, but it is not something we (in our culture) consider an option. But then in our culture we don't command a man who raped a virgin to take her for his wife like God does in the Law.

But still there is no establishment of guilt or insinuation of sinful living.
Gen 19:17 And as they brought them out, one said, "Escape for your life. Do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley. Escape to the hills, lest you be swept away."
Gen 19:18 And Lot said to them, "Oh, no, my lords.

Why did you end your quote there. Lot explains what his "No, No" is about in the very next verses and their acceptance of it.

Gen 19:19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die: Gen 19:20 Behold now, this city [is] near to flee unto, and it [is] a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, ([is] it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.
Gen 19:21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.
Gen 19:22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.

Sure sounds like a fruit bearing righteous person!

Your right, it does. (IMO) :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Lot was not wrong in choosing the Valley. He was offered a choice. If he would have take the other, then Abraham would have lived there. Lot took one side and Abraham took the other, but it was Abraham who allowed Lot to chose so as to keep peace among the family. So there is nothing establishing any unrighteousness there.

Allan, he chose what was best for him. The choice was made selfishly, not randomly.

Actually, did Lot sin here?

Offering your children to be gang raped and molested is not sin?

It was commonly known law in many cultures that when a person is under your roof they are under your protection and you are to protect them by any means necessary.

Well, Lot's daughters were under his roof too, no? What protection was offered them? I think you are really reaching now.

Lot was not rebuked for offering up of two of his virgin daughters in the stead of his guests, but it is not something we (in our culture) consider an option.

I don't recall angels rebuking anybody in Scripture.

Why did you end your quote there. Lot explains what his "No, No" is about in the very next verses and their acceptance of it.

I forgot to add verse 16, what I really meant to focus on. The fact he had to be dragged out of the city shows not only a lack of obedience to God's command, but an attachment to a sinful society.
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.

 

[Allan]

Allan, he chose what was best for him. The choice was made selfishly, not randomly.

It was a choice of - either this one or that one.
Yes, he chose the best yet that does not make one selfish. Scirpture does not say anything more about his choice, intent nor does it allude to more than his choosing the best between TWO choices.

Offering your children to be gang raped and molested is not sin?

Look I agree with you that Lot was not perfect (as in sinless) but the fact is you can not show it was "sinfu"l to offer what he did (deplorable to us as it may be) in trying to protect and uphold the Law of Hospitality. You are arguing from an emotional stand point not a historical nor cultural one to which I am refering. I agree with you however that "I" would not have done it, nor do I find his offer justifiable in my opinion in light of the circumstance. But our society and cultures are 3000 years different AND it was Pre-Mosaic Law.

Anyway, while I agree the offer he made is deplorable and seemingly non-justified. We can understand it a little more when we consider first it was a diffenent culture and custom (and age), as well as the low position or place of women in the pre-Christian (pre-mosaic) world, and the very highest place reserved for a guest in your home. Historically it was understood that a guest was to be protected more than your own family.

Well, Lot's daughters were under his roof too, no? What protection was offered them? I think you are really reaching now.

Again, historically it was understood that a guest was to be protected more than your own family

I forgot to add verse 16, what I really meant to focus on. The fact he had to be dragged out of the city shows not only a lack of obedience to God's command, but an attachment to a sinful society
Gen 19:16 But he lingered. So the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the LORD being merciful to him, and they brought him out and set him outside the city.

You still are not quoting everything. Why was he lingering?

Gen 19:12 ¶ And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place:
Gen 19:13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.
Gen 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.
Gen 19:15 ¶ And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

Lot went to tell his son-in-laws THAT SAME NIGHT about what was about to happen but they though he was joking. Does that sound like someone who doesn't want to leave? They were his kin (or soon to be kin - since his daughters were betrothed-married and not yet literally married). He was most likely waiting to see if they might show up. The angels had to take them out of town and told them to run in a particular direction. Lot said they couldn't go that way or they would die, but to please allow them to go to a different location where they would most likely be safer. This was allowed and Lot FLED with his family. This does not sound like the man you are trying to discribe as being dragged out of the city (which he wasn't. Even the Hebrew doesn't speak to that) but Lot was hurried along and Lot did flee, but unlike his wife who WAS consumed in sins of Sodom he fled and lived while she left and died.

But I will only quote the scripture here and leave off the conversation. Enjoy Web your time and family and may God bless you richly in His mercy and grace.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful deeds; )
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

 

[ituttut]

Christian is to be Christ-like. If you do not have any good fruit then you are not Christ-like and doubtful to me if you are a Christian.

We creatures made in the image of God must find help outside this cursed world, and outside of ourselves if we are to survive forever. We saved by Grace through faith have been placed into His Body, so He accomplished for us what we could not do ourselves.

Is it His power, or ours of producing good fruits that determines our final destination? Our ticket today reads, Destination the Bridegroom, Christ Jesus, The Only Begotten Son of God. We are there already, in Him and at the rapture it will be done. We do not have to wait for the "Kingdom to come", praying, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. They kingdom come…. We will be there to "greet them".

We no longer need worry about being apart from Him in eternity. But I believe while still in the body we will die the physical death (if the rapture does not occur while we live), but cannot, and will not be sent to the "lake of fire" for we (our souls) are secure in Him.

We are bound with Him (as in marriage), and worship Him in Spirit, but in death at the beginning we were separated from the Fellowship with God, the Blessings, and the Life. Why did Adam begin to physically die? Separation from God.

In our spirit alone, even with all of our Good Works, they are just not enough. But if we do produce any good fruit, we will be rewarded.

You know as well as I, all will be resurrected, but all will not be resurrected to "everlasting life". At the rapture our "resurrection" (dead or alive) will be in reunification of the soul, spirit, and our changed bodies. Did our "good fruit" accomplish this for us? Even those "without merit of their own", will not end up with the unbelievers.

 

[johnp.]

The scriptures say that Lot was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard... 2 Peter 2:7.

Although Abraham offered the choice to Lot it was incumbent on Lot to decline in favour of Abraham's choice. Abraham was firstborn, the father of the faithful.

I see Lot did not trust the Lord in the way he treated his daughters but customs often subdue the conscience. Even canibals love their mums. (On toast?) He knew the dangers facing the strangers but took them under his roof regardless.

2 Peter 2:9 if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment.

Sure sounds like a fruit bearing righteous person!

God calls him a Godly man.

What of evangelists to New York? Do you paint them with the same brush? If you put a different spin on it you might see a man that was saying, I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own city, 4 the people of Sodom.

Instead of seeing Lot plead with God to keep the flesh pots going we can see a man concerned with the welfare of the people he lived amongst. He did base his petition on righteousness not on the comfort and pleasures of city life. LK 13:8 " `Sir,' the man replied, `leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

A good evangelist intercedes for his people. Why was he lingering?(webdog) To the pure all things are pure.

john.

 

[Brother Bob]

You know as well as I, all will be resurrected, but all will not be resurrected to "everlasting life". At the rapture our "resurrection" (dead or alive) will be in reunification of the soul, spirit, and our changed bodies. Did our "good fruit" accomplish this for us? Even those "without merit of their own", will not end up with the unbelievers.

No, our "good fruit" did not accomplish our salvation.
We do not have good works to become a Christian, but we do them because we are a Christian. We are to work to the upbuilding of God's Kingdom and not tear it down.
When we who believe that we have a choice either to believe or not believe, are accused of having a works Salvation. If believing is "works" then surely those who believe in the "particular atonement" at least have the works of believing.

In our spirit alone, even with all of our Good Works, they are just not enough. But if we do produce any good fruit, we will be rewarded.

Except you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins.

 

[johnp.]

Bob.

If believing is "works"...

Jesus said belief is a work why deny it? JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
ECC 11:5 As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.

...then surely those who believe in the "particular atonement" at least have the works of believing.

We have the work of God. JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

Spirit gives birth to spirit.

john.

 

[npetreley]

Jesus said belief is a work why deny it? JN 6:29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

I love that verse. It presents a lose-lose proposition to free-willers. If you ignore the obvious (it is a work of God) and interpret it to mean that to believe is the work required by God, then we are saved by works, which is contradicted in so many other places in the Bible.

 

[Brother Bob]

The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent

I take this to mean how that God created man, which was to give Him Glory and Honor and to do this then God has required that man believe. I don't see this saying at all that it is a "work" to believe in Jesus.

Gen 2:2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

John 16:

8: And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9: Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Is this the work of God also?

 

[webdog]

Allan, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I will leave you with this though from www.heraldmag.org that explains better what I was trying to get at...

Righteous Lot​

"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked."—2 Pet. 2:7
Have you ever thought of Lot as a just or righteous man? Would you be more inclined to call him "bad Lot" or "weak Lot?" Why would the Apostle Peter use this appellative "just" to describe a character usually viewed as one who was far less than faithful?
Lot was the nephew of Abraham, being the son of his older brother, Haran. He was part of the entourage which Terah, Abraham’s father, led out of Ur of the Chaldees northwestward along the Euphrates river to a place they named Haran, in honor of Terah’s oldest son, now dead.
After the death of Terah, Abraham left Haran for "the promised land," a land which God had indicated he would inform him of when he was still residing in Ur. This act of Abraham is denoted as one of the great acts of faith in his life by the Apostle Paul in Heb. 11:8.
"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went."
If it was faith which prompted Abraham to leave Haran, was it any less faith on the part of Lot? Some might say that he was younger, and therefore he had little choice. But his sister, Milcah, was left behind. He did have a choice. He chose to go with Abraham. Assuredly, this was an act of faith on Lot’s part! Yet, he was not singled out for this act of faith as was Abraham. Why? Because his faith did not continue to grow to maturity.
Arriving in the land of Canaan, both Abraham and Lot prospered so much that "the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together: for their substance was great." (Gen. 13:6) Strife developed between their herdsmen. In an amicable discussion, the two decided to part company. Lot chose the then fertile area around the base of the Dead Sea. Although now a barren area, it was apparently agriculturally productive before the cataclysm that destroyed the twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
This decision to relocate in the area of Sodom was not in itself an act unpleasing to God. Given first choice, it was only logical to select the area with the best prospects for prosperity. However, it did place Lot in a position of temptation. Prosperity is always tempting, and one of then greatest antagonists of faith. Where prosperity exists, man feels less and less need for God.

Six Steps to Sin​

Following the course of temptation, the move to Sodom traces his decline in six successive steps.
1. STRIFE. (Gen. 13:7) Disagreements are natural. No two independent people can long live without differences of opinion, but these disputes need not degenerate into strife. "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." (Jas. 3:16) Strife breeds suspicions of the other person’s motive and destroys the incentive to work together. While Jude says that we are "to contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 4), he does not say that we are to be contentious for it.
2. BEHOLDING. (Gen. 13:10) Every materialistic act begins with a desire. "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (Jas.1:15) Modern commercial enterprises spend millions of dollars for the very purpose of creating just such desire. Stores invest heavily in creating eye appeal. For Mother Eve, one of the appeals of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" was that "it was pleasant to the eyes." (Gen. 3:6) Similarly, one of the strong temptation to the Christian is "the lust of the eyes." (1 John 2:16)
3. CHOOSING. (Gen. 13:11) Desiring an object in a store window does not mean that we must buy it. Noticing the fertility of the Jordan valley, Lot could have considered other aspects of his decision: perhaps he should defer to his older uncle, Abraham; perhaps he should have taken into consideration the character of his new neighbors, which was already iniquitous. But Lot carried through with his desires and made a positive decision to make a choice based solely on materialistic considerations.
4. DWELLING TOWARD SODOM. (Gen. 13:12) To Lot’s credit, he did not choose to live in Sodom, with all its iniquities. Nevertheless, by pitching his tent "toward Sodom" he was inviting the future temptations which caused him such loss in his later life. In similar vein, Solomon writes in his love song, "Take us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vines." (Song of Solomon 2:15) It is the little temptations, the small sins, which sear the conscience, opening the door for the greater sins to follow.
5. LIVING IN SODOM. (Gen. 14:12) True to this pattern, it is only a short while before we see Lot changing his residence to within the city. No doubt the conveniences of an urban environment over a desert tent and the prosperity which enabled him to purchase a home in the city were all factors in this decision. "Surely," he may have thought, "there can be no greater danger in living in the city than in dwelling in its environs." But there was, and it took two great cataclysms to extricate him from his difficulties.
6. SITTING IN THE GATE. (Gen. 19:1) The position of "sitting in the gate" was reserved for the elders, or judges, of the city. It denoted a position of prominence and esteem. After experiencing the wickedness of his Sodomite neighbors, Lot chooses not to leave the city, but to try to reform it. Numerous compromises would have been required to win the acceptance and necessary votes to hold such a high office, but a conscience which is seared often chooses to ignore the dangers of such compromises.

 

[webdog]

(continued)

Two Tragendies​

As a result of Lot’s living in Sodom, his very life came into danger on two occasions. In one he was taken captive, in the other he fled to avoid destruction. In the one, the whole city was saved for Lot’s sake. In the other, the whole city was destroyed for Lot’s sake.
The first of these incidents is recorded in Genesis, chapter 14. Chedarlaomer, king of Elam, had been holding the people around the Dead Sea as a tribute people. A rebellion finally occurred, in which all the residents of Sodom, including Lot, were taken captive.
Upon hearing of this, Abraham garners together his entire household, some 318 men, and sets out on a rescue mission. Successful, he restores all of Sodom’s possessions to the king of Sodom, and Lot to his home. On the return journey he is met by Melchizedek, king of Salem, and after partaking of ceremonial bread and wine, gives Melchizedek a tithe, or ten percent, of the spoils.
The second tragedy is recorded in the 19th chapter of Genesis, and this time the attacker of Sodom is God himself, because of the extreme wickedness of the residents of both Sodom and its sister city, Gomorroh. After negotiating for its being saved from destruction if 10 righteous people could be found therein, Abraham leaves the matter in God’s hands. (Gen. 18)
Ten righteous were not found. Only Lot, his wife and two daughters were sufficiently concerned to flee the city before an earthquake cause subterranean deposits of sulfur and salt to be forced up through the resultant fissures. The friction thus caused set the sulfur on fire and, with the accompanying salt, rained back on the earth. Lot’s wife, stopping to look longingly back, became encrusted in the descending salt and was turned into a salty pillar.
How well these two incidents demonstrate workings of God in our lives. How often our wrong decisions put us in harm’s way. How frequently the Lord delivers us from these situations, even though they may be of our own making. Delivering us, he does not change our life’s environment. He returns us to our individual Sodoms. The choice is ours, whether to remain or flee. The time comes, however, when no other choice is left us. It will be "flee, or die."
It is worthy of consideration, in this regard, to note the counsel of Rev. 18:4, ""And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."
If Israel had not sprinkled their doorposts with the blood of the lamb on the night of the passover, they, too, would have suffered the terrible consequences of the last plague on Egypt—the death of their firstborms.
It is incumbent upon the Christian to note the consequences of his own actions, to ask the Lord for deliverance and to accept that salvation. But they must go further. They must repent of their former wrong conduct and change their future course of action lest, ultimately, they be destroyed with the wicked.

Vexation of Soul​

"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.)"—2 Pet. 2: 7, 8
Peter’s evaluation of Lot, despite his history, was that he was "just" and had a "righteous soul." Noting Lot’s involvement with the Sodomites, he assures us that this was vexing to his soul. It is worthy of note that the word translated "vexed" in verse 7 is very different from the one translated "vexed" in verse 8.
Both the New International Version and the Revised Version translate verse 7 with the word "distressed." Lot was distressed with the unrighteous acts of his neighbors. He did not agree with them. He probably sought his judgeship with a hope of reforming the city, perhaps enacting a more strict legal code on moral matters.
The word "vexed," however, in verse 8, comes from the Greek basanizo, a word often translated "torment:" but which, according to Strong’s Concordance, meant literally "a touch stone." A touch stone was used in gold mining, to assay the gold content of ore. The ore was rubbed against the stone and, if containing gold, would leave streaks of gold on the touch stone. Idiomatically, it came to signify a "putting to the test, an investigation, to assay or assess."
The thought, then, in our text, is that, being distressed with the unrighteousness surrounding him, Lot’s soul was put to the test. How would he react. Would he seek to reform, or would he flee? It was, indeed, a vexing question.

Entering the Defenced Cities​

A parallel to this lesson is found in Jer. 8:9-22. Here he talks of "wise men" who had "rejected the word of the Lord." In consequence their wives and fields were given to others. Their response to the troubles around them was to say, "Peace, peace, where there is no peace." Like Lot, they compromised with the evil for the sake of maintaining peaceful relationships—co-existence.
The further deterioration in conditions around them lead them to the decision of Jer. 8:14. "Why do we sit still? assemble yourselves, and let us enter into the defenced cities, and let us be silent there: for the LORD our God hath put us to silence, and given us water of gall to drink, because we have sinned against the LORD."
It was this decision, one that was just as wrong as Lot’s decision to remain in Sodom after being rescued by Lot, which causes these "wise men" to lament in verse 20: "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved."

Righteous Lot​

Thus, in spite of the deterioration of Lot’s faith and his continuing association with the Sodomites. he earns Peter’s judgment as "just" and "righteous." But, as the story shows, being righteous does not necessarily mean being right. His righteousness related to his heart intents. They were good. He was vexed, distressed, by the wickedness which surrounded him. But his decisions were not right. Thus he failed of the high commendation of faith which Paul gave his uncle Abraham.
The judgment of Lot in the Lord’s eyes is not given in the Bible. We do well, though, to profit from his mistakes and not to repeat them. As for his judgment or ours, how comforting are the Apostle’s words in 2 Cor. 8:12, "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."

 

[Andy T.]

John 16:

8: And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9: Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Is this the work of God also?

No, anyone who rejects Christ does so out of their own free will. God allows them to choose hell. And if left to ourselves, we would all choose hell. That is why it takes a work of God for any of us to choose Christ.

 

[webdog]

No, anyone who rejects Christ does so out of their own free will. God allows them to choose hell. And if left to ourselves, we would all choose hell. That is why it takes a work of God for any of us to choose Christ.

If there is no other choice...there is no choice at all.

 

[Andy T.]

If there is no other choice...there is no choice at all.

That is the philosophy of men based on libertarian free will theories. I do not find proof of such in the Bible.

 

[webdog]

That is the philosophy of men based on libertarian free will theories. I do not find proof of such in the Bible.

...nor do I find proof of the nonsensical notion that a true choice is regarded as choosing between something attainable and something unattainable.
I would say the philosophy of men leads to your theology, as Scripture is filled with "choose you this day who you will serve", "I place before you life and death, choose life...", etc.
God created us with commons sense. We are created in His image. Choice by definition is between TWR MORE things. Limiting that to only ONE mean NO CHOICE.

 

[Andy T.]

If there is no other choice...there is no choice at all.

Actually, let me play along with your philosophy. There is a choice, it's just that man will always choose hell if left on his own.

 

[webdog]

Actually, let me play along with your philosophy. There is a choice, it's just that man will always choose hell if left on his own.

Man never chooses hell...man chooses self. God never leaves men on their own. Proof lies on you to state He does leave the vast majority on their own, and only works in this nebulous group referred to be calvinists as the "elect".