Eternal life, given or offered?

[Arial]

Of course, only God can regenerate, but that does not even address who God regenerates. It certainly does not preclude anyone from wanting to be regenerated.

How does a God who says I can regenerate you but I am not going to unless you want me to, bear any resemblance to the God who said to Israel, "I, by my mighty hand will bring you out of Egypt and give you a land, and I will be your God, and you will be my people." Unregenerate people do not even know they need to be regenerated, let alone want to be regenerated. What on earth do you think we are regenerated from?

God regenerates those he determined before the foundation of the world that he would give to Christ. He would give to Christ.

Again, nothing there precludes one from want to be redeemed.

What exactly would the one dead in trespasses and sins, at enmity with God, want to be redeemed from? Why would he even think he needed redemption?

What I said precisely precludes even knowing or desiring redemption.

Not so. You have a perverted idea of how one comes to believe in God.

Either that or yours is. I don't have to add anything or take away anything, and produce contradictions within the Bible to arrive at mine though.

No, rather it is your view of belief that defies all logic.

Since I showed you in what way yours defies all logic, rather than just say "No yours does." you will need to show how mine defies all logic in order for your statement to have any validity. Here is why your stance defies logic again to refresh your memory. You did not even bother to address it.

Which produces a situation that defies all logic. If you do believe it must contain some level of understanding what is heard or read. And if there is understanding, it shows a knowledge that by choosing to believe (if one is looking at it as a matter of choice) one gains eternal life, and that by not choosing to believe, one faces certain and permanent death. In other words, the person does believe. And if they do believe, how then are they to also not believe?

 

[LeviR]

The Bible teaches the sovereignty of God in ALL things. That would mean no one belongs to Jesus unless the Father gives them to him. Jesus teaches this in John 3. There is no one who can regenerate but God. Man cannot regenerate himself. That is why God as Jesus had to come and substitute himself for the believer. And why the believer is joined to Christ and his work of redemption through faith. But that atoning work of Christ in and of itself, will not raise anyone to life. God must first bring the person to life. And that is an internal change that reaches in, the mighty hand of God, and turns that heart of stone that is turned away from God, to one soft and pliable in his hands, facing towards him. Just as he says in Jeremiah.

The claim is never made in the doctrines of grace that God chooses who he saves based in any way upon the one he saves. It teaches the opposite and according to Scripture. Eph 1:11-14 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Some think being born again in John 3 refers to being first born of the water of a woman’s womb, while others like myself believe it refers to immersion in water.

Depending what one believes there changes the whole ball game.

If Jesus excludes water baptism then it’s unnecessary to be baptized to enter the kingdom. If not, it’s a prerequisite.

So we get to choose our camp.

 

[LeviR]

Mat 19:28 - And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of hisglory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

That regeneration is the same as Jesus spoke in John 3 of being born of Spirit.
The one who follows Jesus by being raised from the dead(born of Spirit is spirit) will enter the kingdom of God.

 

[Arial]

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me-- 46 not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.

By adding the concept of choice to this verse, which is not there in the actual Scripture, you simply make it contradicts the preceding verses I gave. You do so without ever giving an alternate explanation of the ones I quoted. You did the very thing none as "proof texting". The interpretation you give to prove your point, means something entirely different when removed from the context than it does when it is within the context. What it means within the context (and the reason I did not include it in my quote) must be and is consistent with the previous verses. It only becomes inconsistent if one believes that your verse has the implication of choice.

It also ignores 44 which states all those who come to Christ are the same ones, and the only ones, he will draw to Christ, (as he has already said) and they are the ones he will raise up on the last day. And what happens then? They will be all be taught by God. And since they heard and learned from him, they come to Christ. Monergism.

And you think Jesus knew would believe because they were first regenerated? Rubbish! In your words above, It is not there.

I didn't say anything about Jesus knowing. I said the Father knew and regenerated them so they could and would come to Christ. I know you are about to give me Scriptures you believe say otherwise, and I will address them. But take note, that again you are using a false argument to refute my claim. An argument I did not make. Also absent is any explanation of the meaning of John 6:44-47. You simply go in search to find isolated scriptures you think refute the scripture I gave. Because, that is what you will be doing. Not refuting me, but the scripture itself, and using scriptures to do so.

Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

What that says is no one can believe what they have not heard. Something that is fully affirmed by Reformed. And who are those who call on the name of the Lord? If we are going to be consistent, they would be the ones God granted to come to him, the ones he taught, the ones he gave to the Son. One mighty very well and truthfully say, those whose stony hearts he has removed and given them a heart of flesh, those on whose hearts he has written his law, those he has drawn, those who by grace he has given the gift of faith, those whose blind eyes he has opened and deaf ears he has opened. It can scarcely be said better than the astonishment of "I was blind, but now I see! I was lost but now am found!"

 

[Arial]

Some think being born again in John 3 refers to being first born of the water of a woman’s womb, while others like myself believe it refers to immersion in water.

Depending what one believes there changes the whole ball game.

If Jesus excludes water baptism then it’s unnecessary to be baptized to enter the kingdom. If not, it’s a prerequisite.

So we get to choose our camp.

What one believes changes nothing. It is what God is saying that matters. We are either in agreement with him or not.

 

[JIM]

No one claims it is instinct or imposed. There is a reason why those who hate the idea of a God who would not give man a say so in whether he is saved or not, put forth so called arguments like the one above. The reason is, they can't really make the Bible say what they want it to say unless they add to it and at the same time take away everything that would disprove their position. Therefore they simply misrepresent the doctrine and then tilt at the misrepresentation.

Do you believe in gravity as something that exists and affects every aspect of the world we live in? Could you choose not to believe it? Did you choose to believe it or do you simply believe it because the evidence makes it impossible to not believe? A person would be a fool to believe there is no such thing as gravity. An even bigger fool would be a person who heard the gospel, believed it, and then chose to not believe it, because they would rather go to hell.

A person can say they choose to believe something and not really believe it at all. And since you have said you grew up in a Christian home and do not even know when you "chose" to believe it, and it is more likely that you just did believe the gospel as opposed to not believing it, you really have no standing to even say the things you do about it from any experience of your own. Choosing certainly wasn't your own experience.

Your example of gravity is flawed. The reason is that there is proof that it is. Drop something and it falls. Now then do I believe that it affects the entire universe? That is a different question. I tend to believe it does affect the entire universe, because of what I have learned, not because of what I can test for myself.

Now lets ask about something a little different. Do you believe in the big bang? Why or why not? Without being able to either prove or disprove it in any way yourself, you are left with choosing to believe or not what you hear or read about it. I tend to believe it because I understand some of the science behind what is written about it. Some do not for various reasons. Again it is a choice.

It is much the same with believing in God of the Bible. The entire Bible has been given as the basis for believing in God of the Bible. It presents the data and information in support of God of the Bible. You can choose to believe it or not. You can choose to ignore it even to the point of not reading it. Here in the west, it would be hard not to at least hear about God of the Bible, but even there one chooses whether to give heed to it.

 

[Arial]

And you have a perverted view of the sovereignty of God. It is not sovereignty of God that you espouse; rather it is complete determination and predestination of all things that you preach.

You need to stop telling people their view is perverted simply because it is not your view. It is God who reveals himself as sovereign, who says he determines all things, rules over all things, has always and everywhere chosen who he will for whatever purpose he has. There is none above him, no other sovereign. Who says no one can turn him or thwart him.

A God who you say must grant to mankind the freedom of choice as to whether or not to be saved, and if he does not, then he is violating justice, is not sovereign. Not to mention, when you read that, if it does not strike you as obscene to even suggest God must do anything, then there is something wrong. God cannot be what he is not. If he is sovereign, then he cannot be not sovereign at any point or any place. He owes us nothing. That is why everything he gives and does for us is grace.

Of course it does.

Then give me the doctrine, not according to JIM but according to those who teach it. Start with the Westminster Confession for that is one place where long, long, ago it was put down as to the doctrinal belief. It is your addition to the doctrine of "based in any way upon the one he saves" is where you distorted the doctrine. It teaches specifically that God's choice is not because of anything good or bad about the one he chooses but is based solely within his own counsel and will.

It is those who love God that He foreknew and predestined and called....

The concept of God choosing those who choose him has God learning things and it also is in direct contradiction to, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." and "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1 John 4:10) If it is because we loved him, we merit his saving love in return. Unbiblical.

And you would limit the purpose of his will to be completely devoid of any substance of the one He has predestined.

What? Those he elects do have substance. Why don't you spell out what you mean? Is it because if you do so, you realize what you have laid out will show clearly that grace has been turned on its head, in your doctrine, and merit is the criteria? That those who are saved are saved because something about them deserves it?

You would have God issues laws and commands and then prevent the majority of those to whom the laws and commands were given to even try to obey any of them, needing instead to be first regenerated. Your religion wipes out even a reason for this truly great creation by God. If God were going to preselect those to whom He would give eternal life without any consideration to them as persons, then why didn't He do that without all the folderal of creating the universe and all those eternally condemned?

This reminds me of the way the serpent presented his case to Eve. I marked those things in red. I wouldn't have attempted an intelligent, reasonably discourse with that serpent either, (hypothetically speaking) since he had to go to such lengths of exaggeration and distortion in order to try and get me to listen and come around to his way of thinking. I might have simply given him a look of astonished incredulity and walked away. (The example being given from the viewpoint of hindsight of course.)

 

[JIM]

How does a God who says I can regenerate you but I am not going to unless you want me to, bear any resemblance to the God who said to Israel, "I, by my mighty hand will bring you out of Egypt and give you a land, and I will be your God, and you will be my people." Unregenerate people do not even know they need to be regenerated, let alone want to be regenerated. What on earth do you think we are regenerated from?

Part of the problem with your view of regeneration is that you do not even understand why it is called REgenerate and not simply generate. You do not understand by it is called born again and not simply born when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the flesh and blood, but rather it has to do with the spirit. The spirit needs to be regenerated. It was generated first by God in the womb. When one first sins, the spirit becomes dead in that sin. It needs to be REgenerated. But of course, you think God gives a spirit dead in Adam's sin or you think the spirit comes from the "fallen" parents or some other incorrect way. The spirit comes from God (Zech 12:1; Eccl 12:7). Spirit begets spirit (John 3:6). God gives each a spirit alive and well. In sinning, the spirit becomes dead in sin and needs to be made alive again, it needs to be REgenerated, it needs to be born again, it needs to be born from above.

God regenerates those he determined before the foundation of the world that he would give to Christ. He would give to Christ.

Yes, but He determines that based upon knowing before the foundation of the world whoever, through hearing the word of God, the word about Christ, believes in God.

What exactly would the one dead in trespasses and sins, at enmity with God, want to be redeemed from? Why would he even think he needed redemption?

What I said precisely precludes even knowing or desiring redemption.

Yes, what you said precludes that. But that is not what God says. Read again, Romans 1.

Rom 1:32 Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Either that or yours is. I don't have to add anything or take away anything, and produce contradictions within the Bible to arrive at mine though.

Oh my, You add and take away so much and produce such contradictions to what the Bible says, it is pretty sad.

Since I showed you in what way yours defies all logic, rather than just say "No yours does." you will need to show how mine defies all logic in order for your statement to have any validity. Here is why your stance defies logic again to refresh your memory. You did not even bother to address it.

I have shown that to you in so many ways, and yet you CHOOSE to ignore it.

 

[JIM]

Then give me the doctrine, not according to JIM but according to those who teach it. Start with the Westminster Confession for that is one place where long, long, ago it was put down as to the doctrinal belief.

And that is a part of the problem. I do not start with the Westminster Confession. It is wrong. I start with the Holy Word of God.

 

[Arial]

This reminds me of the way the serpent presented his case to Eve. I marked those things in red. I wouldn't have attempted an intelligent, reasonably discourse with that serpent either, (hypothetically speaking) since he had to go to such lengths of exaggeration and distortion in order to try and get me to listen and come around to his way of thinking. I might have simply given him a look of astonished incredulity and walked away. (The example being given from the viewpoint of hindsight of course.)

@JIM My point in case you didn't get it, is that none of what you said are things contained in the doctrines of grace, or bear any resemblance to them.

 

[JIM]

No one claims it is instinct or imposed.

Yes, Calvinism claims it is imposed. That is what Total Depravity is all about. If unbelief is imposed by way of TD, then belief is imposed by way of regeneration.

 

[JIM]

@JIM My point in case you didn't get it, is that none of what you said are things contained in the doctrines of grace, or bear any resemblance to them.

ARIAL (I don't know how to get that special USER thing to work) My point in case you didn't get it, is that none of what you said are things contained in the doctrines of grace or bear any resemblance to them.

 

[makesends]

I am not a Greek expert either. I copied the verse from the AMP bible and I assume they know what they are talking about when they added the comment "greatly".

Don't do that!

 

[Arial]

ARIAL (I don't know how to get that special USER thing to work) My point in case you didn't get it, is that none of what you said are things contained in the doctrines of grace or bear any resemblance to them.

Hit the @ sign followed by the user name. The name has to be exact, and if it is, will pop up below your typing line.

I make no sense out of what you said above simply said what I said to you without quoting it.

 

[Arial]

Yes, Calvinism claims it is imposed. That is what Total Depravity is all about. If unbelief is imposed by way of TD, then belief is imposed by way of regeneration.

No where in the doctrine of TD does it, by anyone I have ever heard explain it (except those who reject it) indicate that unbelief is imposed on anyone. It declares, as the Bible does that in Adam all sin. Regeneration is God rectifying this situation so that persons will turn to Christ.

 

[JIM]

Hit the @ sign followed by the user name.

Thank you for that. I have wondered about that.

I make no sense out of what you said above simply said what I said to you without quoting it.

So much of what you say based upon the ramblings of Augustine, Calvin or whomever makes no sense according to Scripture. Mostly I think it was Augustine who insinuated some of his Manichaeanism into his thinking about Christianity.

 

[Arial]

And that is a part of the problem. I do not start with the Westminster Confession. It is wrong. I start with the Holy Word of God.

I was not dealing with what you or I think is right or wrong. This is what you said.I sim

So the real question is not whether eternal life is offered rather than given, but rather whether God chooses who He saves based in any way upon the one He saves.

I said the doctrines of grace do not teach that God chooses on the basis of anything good or bad in a person but according to his will and purpose. You insisted that he does choose based on the person. I did not ask you to start with the WC but to check the doctrinal statements of the doctrines of grace at a source. The WC is one of those sources.

 

[JIM]

No where in the doctrine of TD does it, by anyone I have ever heard explain it (except those who reject it) indicate that unbelief is imposed on anyone. It declares, as the Bible does that in Adam all sin. Regeneration is God rectifying this situation so that persons will turn to Christ.

Regeneration is the revival of the spirit. It makes the spirit, once dead in trespasses and sins, alive once again as it was when God first gave it. God regenerates the person who believes in Him.

Spirit begets spirit. Flesh begets flesh. Neither Adam nor the parents beget one's spirit. The spirit of man comes from God. He does not beget dead spirits. One's spirit becomes dead in his trespasses and sins. not from anything else or anyone else.

 

[JIM]

I was not dealing with what you or I think is right or wrong. This is what you said.I sim

I said the doctrines of grace do not teach that God chooses on the basis of anything good or bad in a person but according to his will and purpose. You insisted that he does choose based on the person. I did not ask you to start with the WC but to check the doctrinal statements of the doctrines of grace at a source. The WC is one of those sources.

But not a good source.

 

[Ladodgers6]

The wages of sin is death, but by the generosity of God is life eternal….

It’s a divine gift of generosity.

It is Free, meaning it's not earned by works, but given freely with no strings attached to it. And it's received by Faith Alone apart from works.