By Nature Children of Wrath as others !

[brightfame52]

I copy.pasted the verses, Here it is again. in several translations.

Mam I have seen all that before, Ive been studying these truths for over 30 yrs

Do you think that because in verse 5 it says he loved us even when we were dead and and were children of wrath that it then does not say we were by nature children of wrath? You can't s

This shows me you dont pay attention, I never said the elect were never by nature children of wrath. They were, just not objects of Gods wrath. They were objects of His Live and Mercy

People that live as is described in 1-3, which apart from union with Christ is our nature, are under God's wrath,

Never under Gods wrath, thats false

 

[brightfame52]

Instead of distorting a portion of what I said, and then making a false accusation according to the distortion: DEAL WITH WHAT WAS SAID IN ITS FULL CONTEXT!

I know the context probably better than you, and the elect were never under Gods wrath, and you have not one verse stating that.

Gill writes:

and were by nature children of wrath, even as others: by which is meant, not only that they were wrathful persons, living in malice, hateful, and hating one another; but that they were deserving of the wrath of God, which comes upon the children of disobedience, among whom they had their conversation; and which is revealed from heaven against such sins as they were guilty of, though they were not appointed to it: and they were such "by nature"; really, and not in opinion, and by and from their first birth: so a Jewish commentator (s) on these words, "thy first father hath sinned", Isaiah 43:27 has this note;

"how canst thou say thou hast not sinned? and behold thy first father hath sinned, and he is the first man, for man , "is naturally in sin";''

or by nature a sinner, or sin is naturally impressed in him; and hence being by nature a sinner, he is by nature deserving of the wrath of God, as were the persons spoken of:

 

[Arial]

I know the context probably better than you, and the elect were never under Gods wrath, and you have not one verse stating that.

Who cares what Gil says. Here is what the Bible says. Eph 2



And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience---among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

verse 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
the
That is a copy/paste from the ESV Bible translation. Do not deny that the Bible says the believer was a child of wrath until God made them alive, again.

Okay, but it says nothing about being objects of wrath by nature

New King James Version
among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

Berean Standard Bible
All of us also lived among them at one time, fulfilling the cravings of our flesh and indulging its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath.

To be in agreement with all the NT, they are born condemned objects of wrath by nature (Eph 2:3),
and not freed from that penalty of condemnation until they are born again (Jn 3:3-5, 18)
by the sovereign regeneration of the Holy Spirit, as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

It's not about what you say, it's about what Paul says. . .i.e., the elect ("we") were objects of wrath until they were born again through faith in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:3)

So again:

 

[Arial]

Never under Gods wrath, thats false

Then why are they called children of wrath? Are children objects?

 

[brightfame52]

Who cares what Gil says

I do and many other people.

 

[brightfame52]

Then why are they called children of wrath? Are children objects?

I've already been over that

 

[Arial]

I've already been over that

No kidding. It is wrong every time.

 

[Arial]

I do and many other people.

Is he a forum member so that we can debate with what he says? Anyway--Gil is saying exactly what we are saying and not what you are saying. So not only do you not understand what the Bible is saying, you do not understand what Gil is saying, and you do not understand what we are saying.

Enjoy your mantra song.

 

[Arial]

I would say so, sense it contradicts the work of Christ in appeasing Gods wrath for the elect, and what it says in the very next verse 4 which tells us they are objects of mercy and love

He even said Paul didn't write it so----. I asked him who did and got no answer.

I so wish I could just say I don't agree with something in Scripture so it is a mistranslation and be satisfied with that. It would save doing all the work to find out what the Bible really means by what it says! Not.

Correction: He did answer me but I did not get an alert and I just found it. He is very careless about how he says things. He was splitting hairs saying Paul wrote "were by nature children of wrath" not "objects of wrath". It is splitting hairs because he stills says we were never under God's wrath even when we were children of wrath because we were objects of his love. However, if we are objects in relation to love, we are also objects in relation to wrath.

He does not understand that the work of Christ is not applied to even the elect until it is applied by the Holy Spirit through regeneration and faith. And even though the elect are predestined to come to Christ, they are in the same boat, the same kind of people, as everyone else. Sinners in need of salvation. And sinners are under the wrath of God. When it says in Eph 2 that the believer is an object of mercy, it means that mercy would come to them. He regenerates, he molds the vessel, he sanctifies, and justifies. He does this by making them alive (regeneration).

 

[Arial]

False it's not applied to the believer, it appeased God for them, period, even while they are ungodly and B4 they were born

1 John1:7; Heb 9:14;Heb 10:19. The propitiation was made for us but it was made to God. The propitiation always stays before God, but until a person is brought to Christ, they are not propitiated. That is what applying the blood---the work of Christ---to a person means. It is when they are brought into the covenant relationship.

 

[Arial]

You either a vessel of wrath or a vessel of mercy according to Rom 9:20-23

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 ;Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

All the same lump of clay. God molds the elect into a vessel of mercy. Until he does that through regeneration---as Scripture tells us---they are the same lump and the vessels of wrath.

 

[Arial]

No it doesn't say that, but it uses the contrastive conjunction BUT to indicate that they were objects of Gods Mercy

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

Im sorry if you cant see that

It does not use "but to indicate they were objects of mercy. It uses "but" to say, God in his mercy made them alive when they were dead sinners.

 

[Arial]

I dont know where u got that junk from.

What junk. I asked who wrote Eph 2 since you said Paul didn't write it. That was your complete statement. No qualifications made, when @Eleanor wrote Eph 2:3 in her post.

Where do you see the words "under wrath or objects of wrath ? underline them for me in the verse

That is just splitting hairs unless you can explain how the children of wrath are not objects of wrath. That passage never says the elect are objects of mercy either and yet you interpret it that way.

 

[brightfame52]

No kidding. It is wrong every time.

You wish

 

[brightfame52]

Gil is saying exactly what we are saying and not what you are saying.

He is saying what I said.

 

[brightfame52]

1 John1:7; Heb 9:14;Heb 10:19. The propitiation was made for us but it was made to God.

Duh correct. It was made to God for the elect, God is at peace and reconciled to the Elect while they are enemies by nature, Rom 5:10 backs it up

10 ;For if, when we were[being] enemies, we were[past tense] reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

While the elect were being, by nature children of wrath and enemies to God, they were still at the cross , by His death reconciled to God. That word reconciled katallassó: Reconcile, restore to favor,to be restored to the favor of God, to recover God's favor, Romans 5:10

Its also past tense aorist. now explain how one can be restored to Gods Favor while an enemy, and under Gods wrath at the same time.

 

[brightfame52]

It does not use "but to indicate they were objects of mercy. It uses "but" to say, God in his mercy made them alive when they were dead sinners.

It says enough to make it true, you just dont understand these things. Yes they were objects of Gods mercy Eph 2:4

4 God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, I suppose you deny they were also objects of His Great love as well

 

[brightfame52]

What junk.

That they were UNDER GODS WRATH, that junk isnt nowhere in scripture.. If anything, they were under Gods Love and Mercy

 

[brightfame52]

Justification by Christ Alone and Justification from Eternity

If you mention that God has thought of His elect as righteous from before the foundation of the world in Christ, you’re probably going to be called a hyper-calvinist. It is the common understanding in the calvinistic world that God’s condemnation rested upon every child of God either up until God removed that condemnation at the cross or at conversion. Those that believe actual condemnation is removed at conversion call those who believe condemnation is removed at the cross hyper-calvinists. It is my belief that condemnation has never rested upon God’s elect; but that they only suffer the consequences of condemnation (not knowing Christ) for a time before their conversion. In this sense, all Christians were at one point “children of wrath,” but God’s wrath never actually rested upon them nor were they ever hated by their Father. They were never in real danger of falling into hell, and they have always been held securely in His sovereign hand by His grace, even before conversion. To say that God’s elect were ever in danger of falling into hell is to suggest that God’s decrees are not absolute! God has decreed that each and every one of His elect would be saved by Christ and this decree was efficacious. Further, how is it that God can set His love upon anyone that is not seen as perfectly righteous? https://www.pristinegrace.org/artic...ion+of+a+Hyper-Calvinist&author=Brandan+Kraft

 

[brightfame52]

One other issue before I get to the list of questions you raised. Were God’s elect ever under the sentence of God’s wrath? I do not believe they were. But a lot of what we think on this matter depends on how we define the term “God’s wrath.” I believe that God’s wrath can only be defined by what Christ alone suffered on the cross for the sins of His sheep. God’s elect fell in Adam into sin and death. But before Adam fell, we were chosen by God IN CHRIST to be “vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory.” Yes, we fell in Adam and we are born spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, but we did not fall out of Christ LEGALLY. We sin all our lives, and we deserve and have earned God’s wrath. By nature (as we are naturally born in sin) we are no better off that the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). Our standing before God is described thus – “But God, Who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come He might shew the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:4-7). And who are the vessels of mercy as opposed to the children of wrath? They are those who are brought by God to believe in Christ as opposed to those who live their lives and die in unbelief – “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

https://www.pristinegrace.org/article.php?id=1300&title=Dear+Brother+David&author=Bill+Parker