Can the external call of the gospel by itself produce faith in the heart of the natural man?

[Eternally-Grateful]

Prayers are given.

I received no damage, to me or property all gratitude to God who has such mercy on widows and orphans! They were fierce though. I have always loved them, those storms. The weather report can be scary as they put things that are possible given the atmospheric conditions as though get ready it WILL happen. We did get a wind gust of 101 mph and they were predicting tennis ball size hail. We got no hail at all. God owns those storms, and he directs their paths. At least my local channel quit calling it mother nature!

amen, Call it God allowing nature to do what it does. or possibly God sending a storm for another reason..

Glad it went well.. it appears it was not a stroker, but something else. He is slowly getting some memory back

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You left out a lot. What prompted Nicodemus to ask Jesus "How can these things be?" was Jesus saying 3-8 Jesus answered him, (and here N had not even asked Jesus anything, he had only made a statement about Jesus) "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sounds, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Jesus is talking about being born again. That it is something the Spirit does and no one can see the kingdom of heaven unless he is first born again. Nicodemus wants to know how this born again "thing" can be. He asks, "How can this be." Jesus answered him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and yet do not understand these things?

Why did Jesus rebuke him for not knowing already what he had just said since he was a teacher of the Law? Linking the "water" and the "Spirit" as he did are likely references to OT passages of God pouring out his Spirit in the end times (the post resurrection days) (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ez 36:25-27).

11-15 Trutly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seend, but you do not receive our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Here Jesus is making another comparison to himself and the prefiguration of the snake on a pole. He is telling Nicodemus who he is. But he does not say an option is being offered as in the OT. He does not say look upon him and receive eternal life. He simply says whoever believes in him will have eternal life.

I see it this way

1. God told Nicodemus, if one is to enter into the kingdom. He must be born again
2. Nicodemus looks confused. and said how. is it this.
3. Jesus goes onto explain what he means
born of water and spirit (human birth and spirit birth)
born of flesh (human birth) and born of the spirit (spiritual birth)
that which is born of flesh is flesh. that which is born of spirit is spirit.
do not marvel I said be born again (literally a second time)
4. nicodemus then asks. How can these things be
5. 1st jesus is astonished Nicodemus does nto understand (being a teacher of the law how do you not know these things
he then goes into showing us how we are born spiritually
1. He uses moses and serpent as an example to bring to mind what happened, the type..
he showed he will fulfill that type. and be the true savior of the world. he came not to judge, but that the world MAY be saved.

 

[brightfame52]

@Eternally-Grateful

one must recieve it.. or they can deny and reject it. for whatever reasons (and there are many)

Thats false. Its a legal matter between God and Christ, Christ Blood secured it [forgiveness] by His Blood shed in the New Covenant Matt 26:28

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Thats how its a Gift, it was something done for them between Christ and God, Christ having fulfilled the Covenant with His Blood, all them He did it for, have this gift applied to their heavenly account Heb 8:12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

This is for Christs Sake who did all the Covenant work, He forgives for His Sake Eph 4:32

And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

Thats the Gift. This was true b4 we are born sinners, if we were of the elect

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Jesus had just said that one had to be born again first. IOW there is no believing without being born again.

back to the difference.

Being born is receiving life right?

Being born again is being saved from the penalty of sin, and having your relationship restored.

Now think back to Eph 2. When you were dead in sin God in his great mercy made you alive.

By grace through faith

Think of 1 Cor where we are told the natural man CANNOT understand the things of the Spirit. Nicodemus proves that point. He was a teacher of the Law and he couldn't understand the spiritual things governing the natural things.

Jesus asked him how he did not know those things..

so no. I do not see your point

How is this showing 1. that an option to believe or not is offered along with believing? And 2. That we are born again by believing? We seem to now be talking about two things at the same time or the conversation switched gears.

we are discussin when new birth happens.

before faith or after.

it appears this is where we differ

I will get to the rest tomorrow.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

So how does one "accept Christ" if he is not regenerated?

how can one be regenerated while still under the penalty of sin?

So I've heard. Yet you can't explain how it's even possible. Does it not please God? Romans 8:8 says the mind governed by the flesh cannot please God.

again, It is not to please God

did the tax collector please God when he fell to his knees crying out for Gods mercy?

Bad logic. Explain how one's choosing Christ is possible for the mind governed by the flesh. Romans 8:8.

Explain how it is not possible, with God all things are possible. don't you believe this?

Not calling it a reward. I'm calling it bogus, if it is the result of man's decision. John 1: "...born, not by the will of man, but of God." Submitting to him —even inviting him in— is not salvation, but the result of regeneration and the faith that is a necessary part of regeneration. All the gift by entirely by grace. Can you explain how submitting to God does not please God? (Romans 8:8 again) While you're at it, take a look Romans 8:7, where the mind governed by the flesh can't even submit to God's law.

again we are at an impass

Your right, it is not of a mans will

I can not will myself to heaven, i did not. and I could not

so why are you claiming I did. or I teach this?

I have said this numerous time

John 1: 11 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1. He came to His Own (Israel) they rejected him
2. Those who did receive him, he gave the right to become children of God.. though faith
3. who were born (again) not of blood (it did not pass down from the parnets to the child)
4. Not of the will of the flesh (not because we willed ourselves to heaven, this is impossible
5. Nor of the will of man. I can not will my loved one to heaven.

how many more times do I have to repeat this before people will stop claiming I willed myself to heaven, or even think it possible.

again, did the tax collector will himself to heaven?

 

[Arial]

I see it this way

1. God told Nicodemus, if one is to enter into the kingdom. He must be born again
2. Nicodemus looks confused. and said how. is it this.
3. Jesus goes onto explain what he means
born of water and spirit (human birth and spirit birth)
born of flesh (human birth) and born of the spirit (spiritual birth)
that which is born of flesh is flesh. that which is born of spirit is spirit.
do not marvel I said be born again (literally a second time)
4. nicodemus then asks. How can these things be
5. 1st jesus is astonished Nicodemus does nto understand (being a teacher of the law how do you not know these things
he then goes into showing us how we are born spiritually
1. He uses moses and serpent as an example to bring to mind what happened, the type..
he showed he will fulfill that type. and be the true savior of the world. he came not to judge, but that the world MAY be saved.

We are in complete agreement until you stress the word "may", in order to present it as an option offered. A gift to be received or rejected through our own will on the matter. But in post #273 I showed grammatically and with the end result of Jesus' work, the culmination of it when he returns, that he indeed does save the world---therefore world in John 3 is not referring to individuals but creation itself---and the success of his mission is absolute, because it is a promise made by God, one Jesus came and fulfilled. Here it is again so you don't have to go in search of it.

Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
(John 3:17, NA28).

The two iva clauses (purpose statements) show contrast: Not to condemn, but to save.

The aorist subjunctive verbs (in blue above) express purpose/result.

The contrast (ἀλλ᾽) (green) is emphatic and highlights God's saving intention in sending the Son.

Full literal translation: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

It is not a question of possibility when it says "might" or "may". This is Jesus we are talking about who was sent by the Father for the express purpose of saving the world. And we see in Rev 21 the completion of the Covenant of Redemption, that he does just that. So "world" in this passage is not referring to people, but to the created world, that will be populated only by those who have been redeemed in Christ. These people will come from all over the world. (That is why Jesus, just before his ascension, commanded the disciples to begin the process of taking the gospel to all the nations, gathering his flock (people).

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Ok. A fresh morning and I can give this more and better attention.

In John 3, before we get to this portion of the conversation, Jesus has already made it plain that being born again is completely a spiritual, inner work of God by the Holy Spirit, and according to the will of the Father. According to the will of the Father,\

once again, I am confused. I have never denied this. I in fact agree with you 100 %.. but it seems we keep coming back to this. why?

if we consider what we already know of Scripture and of God, and by the scriptures repeated using the terms, "the elect", the "called", "those given to Christ by the Father", that this work of God of regeneration is not a matter of human choice, but according to the will of God (John 1:12-13). It is like the wind, Jesus says, no one knows where it comes from or where it goes. It is those who God has re-birthed into Christ who believe. Not those who believe and then are re- birthed because they have believed.

when I am reading Jesus words. And how Jesus confronted nicodemus about not only knowing. Well then I do not have to go out into all these other things.

I just have to look at Nicodemus, and assume Jesus told him things he could understand.

The comparison to what happened in the wilderness can only go so far. It only points to Christ and a future event, but the two events are not doing the same thing. In the wilderness with Moses, looking upon the snake on a pole, was not to give eternal life, but to keep from being put to death then and there. When Jesus was nailed to a cross and died, it was about providing eternal life for those God was giving him, defeating the power of Satan to condemn those he died in the place of, breaking the chains of sin that held them in bondage, and ultimately destroying that serpent completely. Nicodemus as a teacher, should have understood the typology and should have known who Jesus really was---Messiah---and what Messiah came to do.

It was a type of christ.

Jesus used this as the type. saying it was an example that we can use today to show what Jesus was going to do. and what needed to be done for anyone to be saved,

again, God does this alot..

So using that incident from the OT does not prove that our salvation is a matter of our choice. Or that faith is the cause of the new birth. I do appreciate the thought and effort that you put into expounding on the scriptures in question. I hope that you will at least consider what I have said also.

Disagree.. and have seen nothing that would make me believe different

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἵνα κρίνῃ τὸν κόσμον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾽ αὐτοῦ.
(John 3:17, NA28).

The two iva clauses (purpose statements) show contrast: Not to condemn, but to save.

The aorist subjunctive verbs (in blue above) express purpose/result.

The contrast (ἀλλ᾽) (green) is emphatic and highlights God's saving intention in sending the Son.

Full literal translation: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

You just proved my point

that they might be saved.

not that they will be saved.

nothing in the text shows that everyone jesus died for will be saved.

It is not a question of possibility when it says "might" or "may". This is Jesus we are talking about who was sent by the Father for the express purpose of saving the world. And we see in Rev 21 the completion of the Covenant of Redemption, that he does just that. So "world" in this passage is not referring to people, but to the created world, that will be populated only by those who have been redeemed in Christ. These people will come from all over the world. (That is why Jesus, just before his ascension, commanded the disciples to begin the process of taking the gospel to all the nations, gathering his flock (people).

The final conclusion, having been supported by the full counsel of God (the Scripture), is that a person who believes HAS been born again by the Holy Spirit, and the faith through which they are saved is the fruit of that new birth. If genuine faith in Christ exists, it is proof of election----that is where God sent the Holy Spirit to apply the work of Jesus.

A person who does not believe has not been born again into the kingdom. They may be at some point, but if they remain in unbelief, they remain condemned, because the Holy Spirit was not sent to them to birth them into the kingdom. (Wait for it. Don't get upset.)

Romans 9: 18-20 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay---"

The absolute truths that God gives us about himself are the most important of all our life. They are a treasure far beyond any treasure the world gives. And it is a grace and a mercy that he has stopped down so far as to become one of us in order to covenant with us and give them to us. We should come to the place where we want to know the truth, his truth, even if we don't like it. Even if it clashes with the very root and depth of our fall that cries out to be in control, to have God bend to our will instead of bending to his.

again, disagree.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Logically, there is nothing complicated about it at all. Using the fact that even the demons believe there is one God does not support anything related to my question. Demons cannot be saved, by God's decree. Demons and angels and Satan, are not included in the Covenant of Redemption. Jesus did not die as a substitute for them.

And you have made a distinction between believe and have faith that does not exist when it pertains to the person and work of Jesus in salvation. They are used the same way, as the same thing, in Scripture. The faith is saving faith , that trusts only in Christ, and belief is in the person and work of Christ. Faith is belief.

Believing in the existence of God is not enough to save. Never was, never will be. There is only one way TO God and that is belief and trust in the person and work of Christ. What you have described are people who do not believe. And who therefore do not have saving faith.

Two entirely different situations. This is before the advent and work of Christ. And no one in the OT had self generated faith. It was given by God, not offered, because it was given to serve HIS purposes in redemption. The example you keep giving as your proof of options, of a gift offered, is simply not a valid one. There were two covenants, structured differently, and serving different purposes. The first prepared the way for the second. So this event you keep bringing up, was about obedience -----but faith.

I am discussing what the word says. Exegesis is a part of being able to establish the truthfulness of what one says by pulling it out of the scripture, relating it to all contexts that are involved in interpretation----of anything. Eisegesis (which is what you did,even if you don't know what it is called, or consider that is what you did) is an interpretation that reflects the personal ideas of viewpoint of the interpreter, reading that into the text. What you said was no where in the text, or in any other text in Scripture.

yes

so lets look at james

what does it profit a person if they CLAIM to have faith, but has no works. can that faith save them?

can the claimed faith save a person? Does the fact I confess I have faith in God mean I am saved forever. so now I can live however I want. I can be a hearer not a doer?

of course not. if a person truly had faith. they would have works..

a dead faith can not save..

some people use eisegesis to their detriment.

Just look at the word.

James made a fact of thought. If yuo say you believe, that great even demons believe

but can your mere belief save you? No

Saving faith as I already explained has confidence, it is assured. and it is based on evidence, not blind faith.

they had non of the above,. they just believed.. the opposite of a legalist who claims they have faith. but their faith is in their deeds, their works, their religion.

their faith is dead also. although it has works context is required..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

That is to clarify what scriptures we are talking about and what they say. If they do not say exactly what they do say and mean exactly what they mean, what do they mean and say instead? How to you make the align with what you think God's character is? They only make nonsense out of the entire chapters in John 6 and John 10 and remove God's omniscience and character if they take away from his omniscience and character. So how do they do that? Or is it possible that there are things about his omniscience and character that you do not want to be there?

John 6 and John 10 and the rest of scripture concerning the gospel is very clear to me.

I do not know why you7 would think otherwise.

Either God knows who would come to Jesus before they do by looking at everything and learning it by looking at it (to put it in human terms), as is described above; or he knows who will come to him because he has chosen them to come to Jesus, predestines them to be conformed to the image of Christ, calls them, justifies them, and glorifies them. Which of those two things is a sovereign God and an omniscient God, and which one is not? To delve deeper into that would require a though examination of something you brought up that really does not relate to the question of John 6: 64-65 and what it says, the subject of the meaning of foreknow in Scripture as it relates to God. John 6:64,65 says that no one can come to Jesus unless it is granted him by the Father, and that is why some believe and some don't. That has nothing to do with God knowing beforehand who would come to him.

omniscience and love are united..

ANd I have not removed the words "whoever sees and believes". They still stand firm. What you have done is added a concept "in order for God's character to not be compromised, he must give equal opportunity for everyone to accept or reject Christ" that just is not there.

yet it is.

Romans 1 says no one has an excuse..

No one means no one..

God is not to blame for their condemnation. they have no one to blame but themselves. god did not hide it from them, THEY HID IT INSIDE THEMSELVES.

That is not what the whole conversation is centered around. It is centered around Jesus and who he is. Why do you think the Jews kept getting angrier and angrier?

Because Jesus kept telling them their works did not help one iota. they needed him..

why has wars over the last 2000 years for exactly the same things happened? for the same reason. People do not like twhn they are told they did all these great dead's. spent their life trying their best. and their best is not good enough.

those are fighting words.

Well, I didn't.

Then stop doing that. If you are honest about it and paying attention, when I quote just a portion of a chapter or collection of verses, the meaning I give to it does not change even when the entire chapter or conversation is used. I am also careful that no place else in the Bible will contradict the meaning I have given. I realize that probably you can't see that and will not acknowledge it, so just consider this portion of the conversation not necessary. I am just trying to get through this long long post.

And it doesn't help that you keep going off on a rabbit trail involving a whole different subject. Start a thread about it.

In the next section of your post, you begin a conversation centered on what it means that God foreknows. So I will post this, and when I have been refreshed, I will treat it as a separate topic and separate post.

I refuse to respond to comments like this

I respond to what I see and what I believe as you do

if you do not like it.. then we can move on..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

1. That is two different scriptures from two different places. John 6 and John 10. It is not all part of one context,
2. I didn't need to answer the question, it was me who asked the question?
3.Neither passage says anything about foreknowledge or predestination. And if foreknowledge is used as a contingency God looks at, predestination is not necessary. The elect are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. You have made man the central actor in salvation, and God a bystander in the effectualness of Christ's life and death. Don't bother saying that you haven't done this. Even if it was not your intention, it is what it is. And don't go to the escape hatch of accusing me of misrepresenting you.
4. God knows who will believe because he has elected them to belong to the Son.
5. Again you have God not sovereign at all, but completely reactive to the whims and will of men. And, no, not everyone comes to faith the same way.
5.a. God does not need to be justified. The elect are justified in/to him.

It is God who foreknows (knows them before the foundation of the world). This is not a casual knowing of them, who they are, but an intimate knowing them as in love). See post # 277 below.

if you say so

again I see it different

he who sees and believes. this is the will of God

if this is Gods will. then his will is accomplish when one who sees and believes (recieved) his gospel

I di not have to try to look at it any different, Just see what Jesus says and take it as gospel truth.

If you want to try to see something else. feel free.

 

[Arial]

and without justification, there is no forgiveness of sin

and without forgiveness of sin, there is no life. (we are still left dead. seperated condemned, in adam)

True. And?

the gift is paid in full

one must recieve it.. or they can deny and reject it. for whatever reasons (and there are many)

Yes, one must receive it, but how does that translate to it merely being an offer, when Jesus himself says that no one can unless the Father grants it? Doesn't that reduce the magnanimity of the death and resurrection of Jesus if he does the work of grace unto salvation and it is not really in his hands to save, but only to provide the means of salvation? And the success of failure of this unfathomable sacrifice is left in the hands of humans who are naturally at enmity with God and cannot understand the spiritual aspects of Jesus' death and resurrection? Is that really grace?

Here we go with the church words again.

Could you have faith if

1. Jesus did make atonement for your sin?
2. If God did not show you he is real (his creation)
3. If God did not draw you to himself by whatever reason he used to draw you over time?
4. If the HS did not convict you of sin righteousness and judgment
5. If God did not help you understand the gospel
6. If God did not prove himself trustworthy, to give you confidence that what he is offering you is real. is trustworthy, He is trustworthy and he will keep his promise. to persuade you that he is trustworthy. even if your faith might be as small as a mustard seed (as the tax collector)

was it your work that got you on your knees? or was it Gods work?

In this light, faith is a gift.

But salvation is the gift being spoken of in Eph 2 what good is salvation if you have faith, but refuse to recieve? it would be nothing.

Your not saved by faith. your saved by grace.. not sure how many more times this has to be said.

I only used ordinary words. What are church words? When you come to 5 and 6, God has been reduced to only a helper and the rest is up to the person (works). God proves himself trustworthy and then it is your faith that brings about the union with Christ (works).

Having said that you then agree that faith is a gift and add the caveat, in order to not agree that faith is a gift. or that Eph 2:8 says exactly what it means and means what it says (in order to not agree with me?) that that in that sentence Paul is not saying that faith is a gift, he is saying that salvation is a gift. So I ask again. Is there salvation without faith? And if there is not, then how can Paul mean salvation and not faith, as the gift?

You are saved by grace through faith. And if you say faith is not a gift equally with grace and salvation, then faith must not be a gift, but something that is self generated, and that by a person who is spiritually dead in sin.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful

οὓς προέγνω​

• οὓς: relative pronoun, accusative masculine plural, referring to people (direct object of the verb).
• προέγνω: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προγινώσκω("to foreknow" or "to choose beforehand").
  • Aorist: punctiliar action (complete)
  • Active voice: subject (God) performs the action
  • Indicative mood: statement of fact

προώρισεν​

• προώρισεν: aorist active indicative, 3rd person singular of προορίζω("to predestine, determine beforehand")
  • Same tense, voice, and mood as above, emphasizing a completed divine action

​

Reformed view:

• Not simply foreseeing faith or human decisions.
• The verb προγινώσκω is understood as relational and elective — "those whom He foreknew" = those He set His love on beforehand.
• Supported by the use of γινώσκω in both OT and NT for covenantal knowledge (cf. Amos 3:2; John 10:14).

---

When God is the subject προέγνω is never used in the Bible to mean mere foresight of future choices. Rather it is always used in a covenantal relationship way.

Romans 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew (προέγνω).
Paul is referring to Israel, God's covenant people. (Who did not choose him, but he chose them.) A Parallel with Amos 3:2 You only have I known of all the
families of the earth
1 Peter 1:20 He (Christ) was foreknown (προεγνωσμένου) before the foundation of the world
Refers to Jesus, not human choices. Jesus was foreordained in the
covenant of redemption to do what he did. It shows purposeful intention.

Those who reject election according to the Reformed tradition assume the meaning God knowing in advance who would have faith, in Romans 8:29, but it is not derived from the way the word is used elsewhere. The grammar and biblical usage overwhelmingly suggest foreloving or choosing in advance, not passive observation.

we see it totally different.

I believe God is a God of love

and also a God who does not make mistakes. because he knows.

He is not going to save a person knowing they have not truly repented yet.

God knew me before the foundation of the world

what did he know about me?

David said God knew him before he was in his mothers womb..

knew what?

I believe He knew who would be saved, and who would reject.

again, it is the will of the father in heaven that he who sees and believes will be saved

he said it not only once but twice once in john 6. and once in john 5

John 5: 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Passing from death to life happened after one believed

John 6: 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Notice in both cases. Life came after faith. not before.. and both claim this life is forever. or eternal

John the baptist understood it
John 3: 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
remember, Jesus just said the same, whoever does not believe is condemned.

How can I be regenerated when the wrath of god abides on me because of unbelief?

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Nevertheless, they did not think they were Jesus' sheep as you stated. And neither did they think Jesus came as a conquering Messiah. They thought he was a blasphemous nut.

so they hailed him as king on palm Sunday not thinking he came as king messiah?

Come on man..

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

@Eternally-Grateful



Thats false. Its a legal matter between God and Christ, Christ Blood secured it [forgiveness] by His Blood shed in the New Covenant Matt 26:28

your right its a legal matter
'
]the wage of sin is death

the gift of God is life

How is life given, because the wage of sin is removed.

this is called justification. we are justified through faith.

no faith. no life.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

We are in complete agreement until you stress the word "may", in order to present it as an option offered.

I did not say it Jesus did

again aorist passive subjunctive.

In the OT. God provided the means of salvation (the bronze serpent)
it was offered to anyone throughout the time anyone needed saved from the serpents (the snakes were sent from God in punishment) (aorist)
the salvation was from God. the person could not save themselves (passive)
it gave the possibility anyone could be saved, they just had to trust.

again, Jesus also said trust.

his who message is whoever believes will be born again, this life being eternal

whoever does not believe. they will remain condemned.

A gift to be received or rejected through our own will on the matter. But in post #273 I showed grammatically and with the end result of Jesus' work, the culmination of it when he returns, that he indeed does save the world---therefore world in John 3 is not referring to individuals but creation itself---and the success of his mission is absolute, because it is a promise made by God, one Jesus came and fulfilled. Here it is again so you don't have to go in search of it.

again back to this

I CAN NOT WILL MYSELF TO HEAVEN. (not by the will of the flesh)

If i hear this one more time I am going to scream@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

True. And?

then regeneration FOLLOWS justification. which FOLLOWS faith

Yes, one must receive it, but how does that translate to it merely being an offer,

really?

I just shake my head..

how can I receive it if it is not offered. Unless I am FORCED TO TAKE IT..(something you deny)

I know it may be hard for you to see.. But it is right there..

 

[Arial]

what part of God draws is hard to understand?

It isn't hard for me to understand when the scripture that uses that word "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him?" is later explained by Jesus when he slightly changes one word. He tells us what he means in the context is that "That is why I said to you, that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.

yes. By these words. your showing faith alone is not earning ones salvation. so why is it taught in here that if I have faith, I have tried to save myself? (is this not synergism)

You are the one who claims faith is not a gift. If it is not a gift, then it is generated from within you. You are contributing to your own salvation. That is synergism.

no person comes to tru saving faith in christ, that kind that justified unless the repent.

Huh?

a legalist claims faith. but their faith is their works, in self. not god

A licentious claims to have faith. but they to in pride. have failed to repent. they think because they said some sinners prayer. they are magically saved and can live like the devil.

Irrelevant to the conversation so I won't follow that particular rabbit trail (if responded to) here.

The difference is you think God saved you first (before justification which is before faith) I think God saved me after (after justification) which is recieved through faith

No. I don't think God saved me before he justified me. I think he justified me when he placed me in Christ----through faith. If I am not mistaken, here you are using "received" as meaning "accepted by choice". That is where we differ. You said grace is in the middle and comes in response to your faith. Which, if you think about it logically and honestly, and have a correct understanding of grace that goes beyond simply a reciting of its dictionary meaning, grace being in the middle, would make grace not actually grace, but a response to what a person does.

As long as you deny the Reformed Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) which were drawn out of Scripture, not read into it; and according to what they actually are in Reformed theology instead of one's emotional and not carefully examined and actually weighed against the full counsel of God in his word; and unless God opens one's understanding in spite of their resistance; that logic cannot be seen. So I don't know what else to tell you. I will pray.

 

[makesends]

how can one be regenerated while still under the penalty of sin?

They are not regenerated while still under the penalty of sin. Their regenerating puts them In Christ. It is a logical result of regeneration, as is faith, but not at a separate time. It is neither gradual nor sudden, but simple fact. When we get to the reality of Heaven, we will see how little "time" has to do with the question. When we are in Heaven, we are [finally] the people God spoke into being, from the beginning.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It isn't hard for me to understand when the scripture that uses that word "No one can come to me unless the Father draws him?"

and?

is later explained by Jesus when he slightly changes one word. He tells us what he means in the context is that "That is why I said to you, that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.

Does God the father not grant that whoever sees and believes will not perish, but have eternal life?

thats what I see

You are the one who claims faith is not a gift.

No. I said faith is not the gift in context of eph 2. Please pay attention

If it is not a gift, then it is generated from within you. You are contributing to your own salvation. That is synergism.

yawn, here we go again.

Huh?

Irrelevant to the conversation so I won't follow that particular rabbit trail (if responded to) here.

lol ok..

No. I don't think God saved me before he justified me.

so then you were not regenerated before God justified you.. Its good. it means we agree

I think he justified me when he placed me in Christ----through faith. If I am not mistaken, here you are using "received" as meaning "accepted by choice". That is where we differ. You said grace is in the middle and comes in response to your faith. Which, if you think about it logically and honestly, and have a correct understanding of grace that goes beyond simply a reciting of its dictionary meaning, grace being in the middle, would make grace not actually grace, but a response to what a person does.

what is different is you have a condemned person born again while still in a state of unbelief

and I have a condemned person still dead in sin

As long as you deny the Reformed Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) which were drawn out of Scripture, not read into it;

they were not drawn out of scripture my friend. You may think that. but the more I study them, the less scriptural I see them.

and according to what they actually are in Reformed theology instead of one's emotional and not carefully examined and actually weighed against the full counsel of God in his word; and unless God opens one's understanding in spite of their resistance; that logic cannot be seen. So I don't know what else to tell you. I will pray.

so unless I see the word as you do. God has no opened my mind.

Is this type of talk supposed to convince me to repent of my faith and come to your faith?