Featured Original Sin

that is the real point on this OP, in that man cannot come to God in and by themselves, god must still do 'something" to get us in aposition to be able to respond to the Gospel of Christ.

Either would be the vaunted "iresistable' garce of Cals, or common grace of the Arms. but still need something done by God !

His view would be that we can come to God by ourselves, have the means to do such!

 

Then you don't know what the gospel is. Check 1Cor.15:1-4.
The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The gospel is not a disagreement of whether or not faith comes from God or not. That is a foolish statement to make.

You cannot demonstrate through Scripture that God gives faith to the unsaved. I have been challenging the Calvinists (mostly in the theology forum) for a couple of years now on this. They have failed miserably. They cannot do it. Faith is innate. Jesus said you must have faith as a little child in order to enter the kingdom of God. It is obvious then that little children have faith.
We exercise faith every day. Children put their faith in their parents. Couples put their faith in their spouses. They trust each other. That is faith. It is trust, confidence--something we exercise every day. It is the object of the faith that is important. As the object of the child's faith is their parents; so the object of a person's faith must be Christ and his atoning work or he cannot please God. But it must be his faith. God does not give faith to the unsaved. With his own faith he believes. It is innate. God only gives faith as a spiritual gift or a fruit of the Spirit after one is saved.

Please learn what the gospel is before you go on a foolish rant.

 

I was just saying that he was NOT talking the same Gospel as you and I in regards to perople having "goodness' within themselves to on their own come to God and place faith in him!

BOTH cals/arms hold to God MUST grant grace to us before one can even get saved!

we just differ on if God enables ALL to be able to get saved, or JUST his own elect!

 

Referring to post #1, If I was 40 years younger I would join a Greek Orthodox Church. I have read several hundred pages of their theology and it makes the best sense.


From the wiki reference:
>Orthodoxy prefers using the term "ancestral sin",[6][7] which indicates that "original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin "[8] In this quotation, "original sin" is used not of the personal sin of Adam, which is his alone and is not transmitted, but in reference to the "distortion of the nature of man", which is inherited.

Agree 100%. Bible clearly teaches every person is responsible only for his own sins. It the effect of the bad decisions that is carried forward.

From DKH:
>The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Agree 100%. The person who adds "and all you gots to do is . . ." is playing God.

 

HP: Well stated Bill.:thumbs:

 

We come into this world at birth with a fallen nature prone to evil and the obvious proof is that no parent needs to train their children to do evil - it comes natural. What parents have to do is restrain children from doing evil which is shortly manifested after birth.

More obvious proof is that all infants are subject to death and death is the wages of sin and the only sin that the death of infants can be attributed to is the sin Adam committed when the entire human nature existed and acted in on man - Adam. It is SPIRITUAL death that is "passed" from Adam to all his posterity through natural generation and from which physical death is derived.

This is what the Bible clearly teaches. This is what plain observable common sense teaches.

[personal attack edited]

 

Michael. What is your understanding of Sacrament?

The Catholic answer is easy. They are the outward signs of inward grace. More specifically they efficacious in that they are in ex opere operato. Or do what they symbolize.

Now when I consider this and study scripture I begin to notice something. We can agree that not every doctrine is named in scripture IE Trinity but certainly the Trinity is taught by scripture. So therefore knowing this, I wonder about the sacraments. Keeping in mind what I have already said and going back to scripture I wonder where God ever uses just a symbol. Starting from the OT (a good place to start) which foreshadows the New and is cohesive with the new. I look for just symbols. And I don't see any "Just Symbols". God instructs in the creation of the tabernacle Yet God actually is present in his tabernacle. God instructs in the making of the Ark yet God's presence is actually in the Ark. God instructs the Hebrews to paint their door post with lambs blood but the angel of death actually skips over those houses because of that blood. The serpent on the staff is held up but the People who look at at the symbol held up don't die of poison. Manna falls from heaven but the hebrews are actually filled. And so on it goes through out the OT. I never see a symbol for a symbol's sake save for the Pegans who's gods are deaf and mute. Why then would this theme of God all of a sudden be changed for the NT?

Certainly these things operated those things which they symbolize. Why is it different in the NT. Just a thought.

 

Faith is something common to man. However, saving faith is contrary to the fallen human nature of man (Rom. 8:7-8).

John 6:44-45, 64-65 plainly teaches that "NO MAN CAN COME" to Christ in faith except it were "given unto him of the Father"!

This is very clear from John 6:64 where the subject is unbelief in Christ. This is exactly what Christ is referring to in John 6:65. They did not believe or and "NO MAN CAN" unless it is "given unto him of the Father."

 

Christ also said: "I will draw ALL men to myself."
What is the source of faith when it comes to salvation?
"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."
God doesn't have to take a hypodermic needle and infuse one with faith before they are able to believe. That is not taught in the Bible. What is taught is that they, by faith, must believe in the Lord Jesus and then they will be saved. It is that simple. The gospel message is not complicated. It is a very simple message.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

It is the Calvinist that makes this simple message out to be a very complicated mess by saying that one must be regenerated before he can be saved. What kind of evangelism do you do? Knock on someone's door. Explain the way of salvation. Then say to one who knows they are in need of salvation--"Oh wait you can't be saved, you have to wait until the Holy Spirit comes and regenerates you first."

 

DHK,
If you believe what you say here to Biblicist, then why do you go against me? Why do you go against me, for instance, in my John 3:91-21 thread?

You are confusing.

 

I am not a Calvinist.
I believe in the depravity of man or that man has a sin nature.
But the Calvinist believes in the Total Inability of man which is different. Man is able to come to God by believing on Christ without a divine intervention of God (as the Calvinist would define it). The only "divine intervention" that I would see would be the conviction of the Holy Spirit, not regeneration. One is saved by the hearing of the Word of God through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In John 3, it is evident that man is born with a sin nature, and therefore love darkness rather than light. However in verse 21 their eyes are enlightened by Christ. The only way that God will accept the works of any individual is if they have first come to Christ. Before that time their works are as "filthy rags" according to Isa.64:6.

The Calvinist has some problems with passages of Scripture such as:
Cornelius. Where was the divine intervention? He sought God, and God sent Peter to him.

The Ethiopian Eunuch. He was reading Isaiah. God sent to him Philip, who said, "Do you understand what you read." He answered, "How can I unless someone will explain it to me." Then Philip began at the same Scripture and preached unto him Jesus. There was no "regeneration first.

And so it is throughout the Book of Acts. The Scripture is preached. People get convicted under the preaching and get saved. Regeneration and salvation happen at the same time.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

 

You have and do go against me and then explain your beliefs in how I explain them.

You are just a contrary person, arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

 

You side with someone who has been going against me for speaking against total depravity.

You side with someone who has been going against me when I teach that faith comes from hearing.

I wish you would not side with a person who falsely accuses people and personally attacks.

 

First do away with the personal attacks. "YOU are just..." It is against the rules and you need to stop.

Note the difference.
1. I believe that all mankind is born with a sin nature. You don't.
The difference between me and the Calvinist is that I don't believe in Total Inability but the depravity of mankind, thus say sin nature.

2. I believe that that sin nature is passed on. It is called the Adamic nature and is inherited--passed on by one generation to another. You don't.

3. I don't believe that man is born inherently good. You do.

The difference between you and I, that is the difference in these three major points of doctrine is what makes you a Pelagian. You believe in the heresy of Pelagianism, denounced as a heresy in the fifth century. Those are the three major point stated above, the ones that you DO believe in.

I may differ in some ways from the Calvinist. But I don't adhere to the heresy of Pelagianism. Therein is a big difference.

 

The proper response is not to pit scripture with scripture. That tactic shows a weakness of your position. Contextually, my point will stand as it will stand also contextually in the texts that you choose to pit against it. In the context of John 12 there are gentiles seeking the Lord and the term "all men" is anarthous construct" (no term for "man" in the Greek text) thus meaning "all classes/kinds." In addition, John 6:44-45 demands that every single one the Father draws does come to Christ in faith. This is proven by the last phrase in verse 44 and in verse 45 "every man" taught "cometh unto me."

Therefore, either the drawing in John 6 is effectual in regard to every solitary single person drawn. That fact alone sinks your interpertation completely.

Paul chooses the term "rhema" not "logos" here. Rhema has the idea of a command or word of command. This is consistent with Paul's analogy with creation of light in 2 Corinthians 4:6. This is consistent with Paul's explanation of how one can know they are one of God's elect in 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 in that the gospel does not come merely in "word only" but in "power" the command of God that creates light. This is consistent with the fact that regeneration is described as a creative act by God (Eph. 2:10a; 4:24; Col. 3:10). When all these texts are considered together it paints a vivid picture that the gospel comes to the elect as a creative command by God ("rhema" "created in Christ Jesus" "For God who commanded the light" "came not in word only but in power") and thus an effectual call out of darkness into light.

Sorry my friend, but on the contrary, it is taught in the Bible and it is taught most clearly by the words "no man can" while you are directly contradicting that statement by saying all man can. How do you explain the fact that Jesus clearly and explicitly says "no man can"?

There is no point of contention here. The question is what brings a person to the decision to do this. Jesus and Paul make it clear that what brings a person to this decision is the elective choice and power of God (Jn. 6:44-45;64-65; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14).

You know you are mistating my position here. I believe that regeneration and conversion are simletaneous and inseparable acts but they have a proper logical cause and effect relationship where the cause is God and the effect is conversion or as the Old Testament prophet put it "Turn us and we shall be turned."

No! We knock on the door and if given the opportunity we share the gospel while praying that the Holy Spirit will make it effectually by granting that person repentance and faith in the gospel. If they repent and believe we praise the Lord and give him all the credit. If not, then we will seek every opportunity in the future to share the gospel again praying the Lord will open their heart and minds.

 

In most of your debates on Calvinism, I notice you go write to John 6 and stay there. You neglect the vast portions of Scripture that say the opposite of what you try to teach from that one passage, rendering that one passage void, or meaning something different than the meaning you have assigned it.

What is the will 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.
--It is not his will that any should perish.
--He provided salvation for all; not just the elect.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
--God's will is that all men be saved. He provided a way that all men could be saved. He died for the sins of all men, not just the elect.

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
--He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, not just for the elect, but for the whole world.

These are just a very few of the verses in the Bible that tell us that God's will is that all be saved. His will is thwarted by the depravity of man's heart. It will not be accomplished. But that doesn't mean he didn't provide salvation for all men, or make it available for all men. Even Calvin himself believed that the death of Christ was sufficient to meet the needs of all on this world and in the ages to come. He believed that all who called on his name would be saved. Read his commentary on John 3:16.

This is not what the Word of God says. It sounds like a philosophy not an exegesis of God's word. The word of God is very simple. It simply states:

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
The one who hears God's Word will gain confidence that it is true, and in time believe its message--some sooner than others. Abraham is a good example:

Romans 4:20-21 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
--Abraham trusted in the promises of God (God's Word).
He was fully persuaded that what God had promised, God would do.
That is a definition of faith. It is confidence, trust in God's Word, or His promises. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. The more you hear it, the more confident you will be in putting your trust in it.

I don't know what you are referring to here. You must be stuck on your favorite passage which I never referred to.
It is an unbiblical concept to believe that God would give a spiritual gift or a fruit of the Spirit (faith) to an unsaved individual. And yet that is what you believe. God does not give faith to anyone in order that they may be saved. You cannot demonstrate that from Scripture. A person comes to Christ by their own faith. The Bible is clear on that. From Abel, who by (his own) faith, brought his own sacrifice to God, to Abraham, who believed (by his own faith) through to the Philippian jailer who believed (with his own faith) on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thus obtained salvation--we see that salvation is by faith and faith alone. sola fide.

No, it is simply the omniscience of God. He knows ahead of time the decision we are going to make. Election applies only to the believer. Look at Eph.1:12. "Elect to the praise of his glory." That is believers are chosen for one purpose--to bring glory to God. Election always points to the purpose that God has for believers.

I am glad that your position is different. There are many Calvinists who believe that regeneration is before salvation, and can be even days before salvation. They sometimes use Cornelius as an example, and say that he may have been regenerated before his servants even reached Peter's house. That position is absurd.

First, the person believes with his own faith, not with God's faith. God does not grant him faith to believe, otherwise he is just a robot in the hand of God.
Second, It is the power of the gospel unto salvation. It is the Word of God that has the power and is sharper than a two-edged sword. That is where the power is and where the message is. The Holy Spirit uses that word, and his ministry is to convict of sin. The sinner must, of his own faith, decide to come to Christ. He has that ability, under the sovereign will of God, to choose to reject or receive Christ.

 

The reason I go right to that text is because of the contextual clarity and direct dealing with the very subject at hand.

As you well know, there are a variety of subjects debated on this forum. In order to escape all the useless debating that arises when you select texts that may be more ambiguous than direct, we select a text that deals a decisive blow to the opposition instead of haggering over other texts that are not as decisive.

John 6:29-65 is a very decisive context that deals a death blow to the idea that saving faith is the capability of all men. Jesus says "NO MAN CAN COME" to him in faith, as that is the very subject discussed in John 6:64-65.

I don't neglect them, but you are right that I do not use them in defense of my position because they are more indirect texts that depend upon a series of logical inferences rather than directly addressing the issue.

The second comment is not supported or stated by the text. You are inferring it from your own soteriological perspective. Secondly, the term "us-ward" can be equally applied to the elect rather than to all mankind in general.

Again, the argument between us here boils down to "all men" without distinction or "all men" without exception. You take the latter while I take the former. Mutual stand off.

Again, I believe there is contextual support to view this epistle as written to JEWISH believers rather than Gentile believes for several contextual reasons. Second, Acts 1-15 demonstrate fairly clearly that Jewish believers still had reserverations about Gentiles and that many still believed one must become Jewish to be saved (Acts 15). Peter had have the vision repeated three times and still went reluctantly to a gentile house while many at Jerusalem called him in on the carpet for even entering a Gentile house. Galatians 2 demonstrates that Peter continued to have problems along with Barnabas. Hence, my interpretation is that the "whole world" means Jews and Gentiles - all classes and kinds rather than all mankind without exception.

I have never read the works of Calvin or Augustine. I am not a follower of Calvin. You will never read any post where I quote anyone but Biblical writers to defend my positions.

I believe the same thing! That is not the issue. The issue is what brings a person to call upon the Name of the Lord. That is the point where we differ not that the Lord will save whosoever will believe or whosoever will call upon the Lord. He will save all who do so but the question remains what brings a person to do that. This is where we differ.

Now, I have read you enough to know that you point out a Greek term or grammar when it affects the text you are discussing. I pointed out a Greek term in Romans 10:17 "Rhema" and noted it can mean a "word of command." That is sound exegetical notation. I further supported that meaning with other texts that deal explicitly with the impact of the gospel upon the elect noting that in many other places Paul does present the gospel coming "not in word only" as the term "logos" may infer rather than "rhema" but in "power"! Indeed, Paul explicitly and clearly in a context dealing with the preaching of the gospel where Satanic interference is noted (2 Cor. 4:2-4) that the effectual preaching of the gospel is compared to Genesis 1:3 and the very words "For God who COMMANDED the light" (2 Cor. 4:6) thus again confirming the term "Rhema" in Romans 10:17 as a word of command. Romans 10:17 does not say faith cometh from man but from "hearing" and hearing by "the word of Command" as in the command to create light. I pointed out 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 where again the idea of "rhema" is confirmed by Paul denying the gospel came to the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) by "word only" but rather in "power and in the Holy Spirit and in much assurance" (1 Thes. 1:5). Again, I pointed out that in connection with "faith" regeneration is inseparably involved (Eph. 2:8) as a CREATIVE act (Eph. 2:10) again confirming the Genesis 1:3 analogy and the "Rhema" meaning of Romans 10:17.

I don't see how you can legitimaely accuse me of "philosophical" speculation when I am basing everything directly upon specific texts and specific words found in that text.

Jesus explicitly and clearly states the very opposite of your position that demands every man has faith and can believe but when Jesus says in both John 6:44 and 6:65 that "NO MAN CAN" come to him in faith except it is "given unto him of the Father." The contextual issue is the difference between unbelief and faith (Jn. 6:64). This is what I am talking about! A flat contradiction between your position and Christ's words regarding coming to him in faith.

I believe that God gives a NEW HEART which loves light and hates darkness (Ezek 36:26-27) and it is a BELIEVING heart. Just compare Ezekiel 36:26-27 with Deuteronomy 29:4. Both texts are directed toward the very same people. Deuteronomy 29:4 explains why they CANNOT see, hear or come while Ezekiel 26:26-27 explains how they CAN see, hear and do his will.

Jn. 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Verse 64 points out the problem of unbeleif among those who professed to be disciples including Judas. Many of them left right then. However, verse 65 explains why they were still in unbelief because coming to believe in Christ is something that must be "given unto" a person because "NO MAN CAN COME UNTO ME" except it is given unto them by the Father. However, this is only the beginning of your problem here. The fact that not one single person whom the Father gives fails to come and fails to be ultimately saved provides another gigantic obstacle to your interpetation of election as election is "TO" salvation not because of forseen salvation (2 Thes. 2:13).

"For it is God that worketh in you both to WILL and to DO of His good pleasure" so, "it is not him that willeth or him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy." It is the faith of the elect in somuch that God works it in them (Philip. 2:12) and it is by God's power they work it out of them (Philip. 2:13).

Romans 9:13 and 17 both deny that election is merely prescience. Foreknowledge is based upon Divine "purpose" in Romans 8:28-29 and election is "TO" salvation (2 Thes. 2:13) rather than because of salvation.

In Romans 8:28-29 the order is first that God works all things "according to His purpose" (v. 28) and he will fulfill every thing he has purposed (Isa. 49:9-11). Foreknew comes next (v. 29). An archetech has a blue print of a house and therefore before the house is even built he can tell you where every door, every window is going to be placed, because he knows ahead of time because he purposed it before the foundation of the world "according to the good pleasure of His will" and not according to man's will (Rom. 9:13,17).

Look at verse 4 and you will see that election is God's determinate choice to make us "holy" and "blameless" not as a result of being holy and blameless. Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God's choice is "TO" salvation not a consequence of salvation! Your position actually robs the glory from God and gives it to man. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 completely repudiates your whole interpretative theory about election as election is restricted and it is "OF GOD he is MADE unto us" that no flesh should glory.