FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)

[makesends]

I have seen no valid rebuttal other than
you all saying no that cant be what it says because it doesn't align with your view so yo write paragraphs trying to reword it when I simply agree with what is recorded. It matters not what scriptures I provide you have to rewrite them.

Do you believe the version you quote is the plenary verbal inspired word of God, or just a translation of the remaining examples copied from the plenary verbal inspired word of God? You claim your interpretation is, let's say, guided by the Spirit of God. Do you claim ours is not, because it disagrees with yours?

We show you the simple logic—logic that holds together through all scripture and reason. Yours falls apart at several junctures; the most obvious to me is that of God's very nature and being, to include his purposeful creating, himself the reason for existence, reality and fact, his omnipotence and aseity (as declared from both reason and scripture) necessarily implying that nothing —not one rogue particle— moves apart from his causing it to do so. But you want to claim that somehow man has the ability to things uncaused to do so, (which itself implies that chance rules the day, since some do and some don't and the only difference between those who do and those who don't is that some do and some don't. Huge break down in logic, there, and contradiction of scriptures witnessing God's nature and being.

 

[JesusFan]

Of course it sounds crazy! That was the point! Your question about Israel being God's chosen people invokes that very thing.

Your response here sidesteps the question, though. You resort to restating your position on the gospel as though it explains the question without actually answering the question. What you say here also is at odds with YOUR original question about corporate Israel. Here, if you intend both things as posted, the first post intends corporate Israel, God's chosen people, to equate to the Elect, in some way. In this post, you suddenly jump to the whole world, as thought that equates God's chosen people. Is the whole world God's chosen people?

If he holds to that, then we are getting really close to Barthian election theology

 

[makesends]

BillyBob65 said:
The Bible affirms all three at the same time, not one at the expense of another.

Exactly. But you present man's responsibility at the expense of his sovereignty. Which takes away from his sovereignty and say it doesn't because he willed it so is to ignore the meaning of sovereign as applied to God.
But man's responsibility is not the subject. The immutable sovereignty of God is.

@BillyBob65 , @Arial has been kind here. Truth is, your position being that God has willed that man have this ability to obey/disobey uncaused to do so being in keeping with God's love and fairness, is logically self-contradictory. (And I'm being nice to say it that way without more demonstrative terms.) You have God causing something uncaused. Your defense, I expect, is to claim the Bible says it, who are you/we to disagree with the Bible. Well, no, the Bible does not give your definition of Love, nor your use of fairness.

Your "what it says" is not what it says. It is what you take it to say. Do not defend it by claiming the Spirit has revealed it to you. That won't go anywhere here—not because we don't believe the Spirit cannot do so, but because readings at variance from the rest of Scripture are necessarily false.

 

[BillyBob65]

This is the statement and question that you are responding to. It would be helpful if you actually quoted what you are responding to, so I don't have to keep doing so myself in order to keep the conversation on track.

The question is not about the three biblical truths you list. Human responsibility and the sovereignty of God is a whole other debate. A whole other category. One is God and his immutability. The other is human and his responsibility to God. It involves searching out the distinctions without taking away from either party. Human responsibility has nothing to do with the sovereignty of God and if one then has to adjust the meaning of sovereignty in order to make man responsible there is something wrong in their process.

Exactly. But you present man's responsibility at the expense of his sovereignty. Which takes away from his sovereignty and say it doesn't because he willed it so is to ignore the meaning of sovereign as applied to God.
But man's responsibility is not the subject. The immutable sovereignty of God is.

He does not have to will to command repentance or judge unbelief. He is God. And he commands repentance even from the unbelieving and those who will never believe. That is the basis for his judgment. But you inserted something in that sentence that is not in the Bible in order to support your supposition of "free will choice". "To offer salvation." Does Scripture say salvation is offered or does it say, "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Where in Scripture does it say explicitly that salvation is an offer. Explicit means that it cannot be implied by inserting an idea and word that does not exist in the passage. I.e. "Choose to believe and you will be saved." when the passage only says "Believe and you will be saved." Some times a statement is just a statement. Simply offering something instead of giving it (something only he can give) is not the definition of sovereign. It is the opposite.

Yes, and a command shows duty, not ability.
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.”
(Deuteronomy 6:5) and Scripture also says
“There is none righteous, no, not one.”
(Romans 3:10)

Faith itself is commanded:
“This is His commandment, that we believe.”
(1 John 3:23) but Scripture also says:
“The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.”
(1 Corinthians 2:14)

A command of God never means he surrenders sovereignty. And he always ordained the means by which salvation comes. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what the means is and here you are presuming without demonstrating that the means is the gospel heard, believed, and either accepted or rejected.

My position is the gospel not withheld from any nation or category of persons (general call) but only effectual for the elect (internal call).



Simple question: If believing is the means of salvation which you also acknowledge, where is the breakdown of logic in this sentence? "A person hears and believes the gospel and then decides whether to accept or reject it?"

Indeed, it never says God hands salvation over to man's will. That is the implication of what you teach.

Salvation does not involve both in the same way. God alone is the cause and man is the receiver, not the decider.




Don't repeat your assertion. This time address the scriptures I gave.

Change if subject.

Massive red herring.

No one is denying that humans make choices. The issue is, "Does a slave have the ability to save himself from slavery by simply choosing to? The issue here is did God relinquish his will that "no one should perish but all come to repentance (as interpreted by you irrespective of context) to man's will of accepting or rejecting the work or Jesus on the cross?

That is a clear distinction. God's will be done or man's will be done.

And sovereignty is not quantitative or qualitative ("So great that he can---"). It is absolute.

See above.

You are educated enough to know that if it says to those that believe is an offer. You have the offer but it is up to you to choose to believe or not to believe. That is a choice you must make it is not made for you.

Your just trying to find loop holes that don't exist. You understand that the gospel call is offered and has to be obeyed that is the essence of the bible.

 

[makesends]

BillyBob65 said:
This command doesn’t mean God surrendered sovereignty.
It means He sovereignly ordained the means by which salvation comes.

A command of God never means he surrenders sovereignty. And he always ordained the means by which salvation comes. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what the means is and here you are presuming without demonstrating that the means is the gospel heard, believed, and either accepted or rejected.

@BillyBob65 consider this poetic-sounding statement by an Arminian I knew rather well, as though poetic-sounding made it more true: "There is nothing more sovereign that God can do, than to give up some of his sovereignty." In effect, you are claiming God gave up some of his sovereignty. The notion is untenable. He either is, or is not, sovereign.

 

[BillyBob65]

BillyBob65 said:
The Bible affirms all three at the same time, not one at the expense of another.

@BillyBob65 , @Arial has been kind here. Truth is, your position being that God has willed that man have this ability to obey/disobey uncaused to do so being in keeping with God's love and fairness, is logically self-contradictory. (And I'm being nice to say it that way without more demonstrative terms.) You have God causing something uncaused. Your defense, I expect, is to claim the Bible says it, who are you/we to disagree with the Bible. Well, no, the Bible does not give your definition of Love, nor your use of fairness.

Your "what it says" is not what it says. It is what you take it to say. Do not defend it by claiming the Spirit has revealed it to you. That won't go anywhere here—not because we don't believe the Spirit cannot do so, but because readings at variance from the rest of Scripture are necessarily false.

My what it says aligns much better with scripture than your what it says .

 

[BillyBob65]

BillyBob65 said:
This command doesn’t mean God surrendered sovereignty.
It means He sovereignly ordained the means by which salvation comes.

@BillyBob65 consider this poetic-sounding statement by an Arminian I knew rather well, as though poetic-sounding made it more true: "There is nothing more sovereign that God can do, than to give up some of his sovereignty." In effect, you are claiming God gave up some of his sovereignty. The notion is untenable. He either is, or is not, sovereign.

I am not saying God gave up anything you just don't understand God as well as you think. He has told you that it was his will to save man through the gospel call you just can't accept that he is working with mankind and not controlling them as you try to say he is.

 

[makesends]

You are educated enough to know that if it says to those that believe is an offer. You have the offer but it is up to you to choose to believe or not to believe. That is a choice you must make it is not made for you.

Your just trying to find loop holes that don't exist. You understand that the gospel call is offered and has to be obeyed that is the essence of the bible.

Your very claim here, (and the several you have made surrounding it), are drawn from a point-of-view that we exist independently of God. You have us as moral agents on his level. God doesn't have to choose to be moral. Moral is what it is, because God is moral. "God IS morality", if that helps make the point.

We do not exist independently of God. Creation, the universe—'the Omni'—does not exist independently of God. In him we live and move and have our being.

 

[BillyBob65]

Your very claim here, (and the several you have made surrounding it), are drawn from a point-of-view that we exist independently of God. You have us as moral agents on his level. God doesn't have to choose to be moral. Moral is what it is, because God is moral. "God IS morality", if that helps make the point.

We do not exist independently of God. Creation, the universe—'the Omni'—does not exist independently of God. In him we live and move and have our being.

No that is just how you understand what I said. You are taking my words and appling you bias to them. You can't see what I am saying because you are looking at it through bias glasses.

 

[BillyBob65]

This thread has gotten way of track from

FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)​

Maybe we should get it back on track you think?

 

[Arial]

You are educated enough to know that if it says to those that believe is an offer. You have the offer but it is up to you to choose to believe or not to believe. That is a choice you must make it is not made for you.

Here's a question for you. Why do you quote my entire post and respond to only one tiny portion of it as though that covers all of it.? Where are you addressing the scriptures, I asked you to address? I will tell you why you don't do that and why you have never in all these posts addressed any of the scriptures that I gave. Because they flat out destroy your premise.

My education has nothing to do with what the scriptures say and mean. There is no offer being made in "those that believe". It simply says, "Those that believe are saved." Nothing more, nothing less.

And God electing and bringing to salvation those he is giving to Christ (and every scripture that says that and has been presented to you, you ignore) is not God making a choice for us. The idea of a "choice" for or against salvation is nowhere stated in the order of salvation. Nor in any of the Gospels or the writings of the apostles. Do you see any of them pleading for someone to choose to believe? God's electing is for the Son, and he purchases them with his blood. The thrust of redemption is not a kingdom for man but a kingdom for the Son. Get over yourself.

Your just trying to find loop holes that don't exist. You understand that the gospel call is offered and has to be obeyed that is the essence of the bible.

I don't need to look for loopholes. Who is looking for a loophole? The one who doesn't add words and concepts to the Bible or the one who does?

Where is your answer to the question: If believing is the means of salvation which you also acknowledge, where is the breakdown of logic in this sentence? "A person hears and believes the gospel and then decides whether to accept or reject it?"

 

[Arial]

My what it says aligns much better with scripture than your what it says .

OK Pope Billy.

 

[Arial]

This thread has gotten way of track from

FOR or BECAUSE OF the forgiveness of your sins, (Acts 2:38)​

Maybe we should get it back on track you think?

Why? So that you can repeat all of that false interpretation of Scripture and listen to no one again? No thanks.

 

[makesends]

I am not saying God gave up anything you just don't understand God as well as you think. He has told you that it was his will to save man through the gospel call you just can't accept that he is working with mankind and not controlling them as you try to say he is.

—Still said from the worldview that places us on God's level of operation and moral ability, already a ridiculous notion, but worse, claimed as so while we were still at enmity with him!

God does not live with us here in the sense that we live with each other here, dealing with this temporal frame and weak persons, as though we had any integrity or force of being in ourselves. He gave us the ability to will, and, unlike any other creature but the angels, blessed us with the responsibility to submit to him, to love and obey him. And we want to claim now, that we can do anything real, without him changing our dead hearts to life? Even AFTER being made alive, our every breath and thought and motive is established by God, or it is not even REAL.

 

[makesends]

Here's a question for you. Why do you quote my entire post and respond to only one tiny portion of it as though that covers all of it.? Where are you addressing the scriptures, I asked you to address? I will tell you why you don't do that and why you have never in all these posts addressed any of the scriptures that I gave. Because they flat out destroy your premise.

My education has nothing to do with what the scriptures say and mean. There is no offer being made in "those that believe". It simply says, "Those that believe are saved." Nothing more, nothing less.

And God electing and bringing to salvation those he is giving to Christ (and every scripture that says that and has been presented to you, you ignore) is not God making a choice for us. The idea of a "choice" for or against salvation is nowhere stated in the order of salvation. Nor in any of the Gospels or the writings of the apostles. Do you see any of them pleading for someone to choose to believe? God's electing is for the Son, and he purchases them with his blood. The thrust of redemption is not a kingdom for man but a kingdom for the Son. Get over yourself.

I don't need to look for loopholes. Who is looking for a loophole? The one who doesn't add words and concepts to the Bible or the one who does?

Where is your answer to the question: If believing is the means of salvation which you also acknowledge, where is the breakdown of logic in this sentence? "A person hears and believes the gospel and then decides whether to accept or reject it?"

BillyBob65 said:
Your just trying to find loop holes that don't exist. You understand that the gospel call is offered and has to be obeyed that is the essence of the bible.
==================================================
Billy, I expect you haven't noticed, but there is NO bible reference you have used to make your case, that demonstrates the ability of man to do anything on his own uncaused.

In fact, the passages you reference instead usually provide strong support of God's ABSOLUTE sovereignty over the human will.

Now, we've been through this enough that it is time to face the music. You've claimed that:
1. We don't get what you're trying to say;
2. You have the very words of God as simply read without need for exegesis;
3. You have the Holy Spirit in you to interpret the Word of God correctly —(and that, to the ignoring of Scripture you can't use);
4. Even here in what I have quoted you as saying you misrepresent the essence of the Bible: "the gospel call is offered and has to be obeyed that is the essence of the bible." No, it isn't. Nor do we say that the gospel 'call' is not offered to all and has to be obeyed, (ignoring for now the imprecise poetic language of "gospel call");
5. You have appealed to the logic that God is the one who willed that man have the ability to choose Christ while still at enmity with God, directly denying many scriptures. You have Romans 8's "mind of the flesh" able to please God after all!
6. You operate from the unspoken premise that we, being separate entities from God, are somehow able apart from God's enabling, to make an uncorrupt choice. You have placed fallen mankind on God's level of operation and will, not to mention that is impossible even for the born-again. The logic of your entire thesis depends on that presumption.
7. Our use of scripture is driven by our bias (while yours, obviously, is not).
8. You claim as axiomatic that the command necessarily implies the ability to obey. No—it does not. The law, in fact, is explicitly said to demonstrate our inability—our need for Christ.
9. And so on. —I don't doubt that @Arial could add to this list with several more items, or better statements than I have made, and so could those who have not been posting much here.
10. I don't know if you have even considered this: That in the Bible INABILITY is expressed implicitly, and the purpose of the law explicitly, as, "that [sin would] increase", thus demonstrating God's purpose in this whole matter of Creation: HIS REDEMPTION — BY GRACE ALONE — OF A PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE OF THEMSELVES TO OBEY — TO BE OUR GOD AND WE HIS PEOPLE FOREVER — "IN HIM". Billy, if we are able to obey apart from God enabling us, where's the evidence? PARTICULARLY: If we are able to choose Christ apart from being made new, where is the evidence? Do you not see your own inability, the weakness of the flesh, the inconstancy of your dedication, the constant bent toward sin, the desire to exalt yourself in spite of your own corrupt "Old Man"?

Anyhow, I'm saying you need to deal with these questions —and particularly @Arial 's specific questions— or quit, because your constant repetition of themes and personal take on Scriptures as "plainly read" from your self-deterministic mindset isn't doing it here. Repetition has gone on long enough. And you are not going to get past the need for exegesis on this site. Demonstrate your exegesis—not your eisegesis. If we can't get some kind of real debate going here, it needs to stop.

 

[BillyBob65]

Here's a question for you. Why do you quote my entire post and respond to only one tiny portion of it as though that covers all of it.? Where are you addressing the scriptures, I asked you to address? I will tell you why you don't do that and why you have never in all these posts addressed any of the scriptures that I gave. Because they flat out destroy your premise.

My education has nothing to do with what the scriptures say and mean. There is no offer being made in "those that believe". It simply says, "Those that believe are saved." Nothing more, nothing less.

And God electing and bringing to salvation those he is giving to Christ (and every scripture that says that and has been presented to you, you ignore) is not God making a choice for us. The idea of a "choice" for or against salvation is nowhere stated in the order of salvation. Nor in any of the Gospels or the writings of the apostles. Do you see any of them pleading for someone to choose to believe? God's electing is for the Son, and he purchases them with his blood. The thrust of redemption is not a kingdom for man but a kingdom for the Son. Get over yourself.

I don't need to look for loopholes. Who is looking for a loophole? The one who doesn't add words and concepts to the Bible or the one who does?

Where is your answer to the question: If believing is the means of salvation which you also acknowledge, where is the breakdown of logic in this sentence? "A person hears and believes the gospel and then decides whether to accept or reject it?"

I have addressed the scriptures you posted you just reject my answer and then say I did not address them. am not not going to rehash all I have already addressed.

You said "I will tell you why you don't do that and why you have never in all these posts addressed any of the scriptures that I gave. Because they flat out destroy your premise."{Edit: violation of 2.1, 2.2}

You say there is no offer then just what is the gospel if it is not God calling you to ACCEPT the offer of salvation It is not universal salvation there is something that sets it apart something you are required to do to receive the salvation offered. That is the whole bible message and I thought you could see that being you think you know the bible.
Red Strike through is violation of rules. Misrepresenting a person's belief, and personal insult.
WE have already covered just how God gives to christ those that are being saved it is through the gospel you just can see it because it will mess up you theology.

You said "God's electing is for the Son, and he purchases them with his blood." Yes this is what I have been saying alone. Thank you for finally getting it. God's electing is through the son through the gospel it is the gospel that has the power unto salvation.It is through the death burial and resurrection (his blood) that we are the elect the chosen the called out.God planned this method of salvation through Christ before the foundation of the world.

You said "I don't need to look for loopholes. Who is looking for a loophole? The one who doesn't add words and concepts to the Bible or the one who does?" We both know that the answer to that is the one who does so let look at an example as to which one of us is guilty.

Example: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Me: yes that is what it says and means it is for the remission of sin and there are other scriptures to support that is what it means.

You: For does not mean for as in order to but rather because of and then you write paragraphs to ty to make it fit.

Now who would you say is seeking loop holes to verify their theory.

Okay I did not make my point clear on believing yes He that believes has already made the choice and ACCEPTED it but what is it that he believed? The gospel call the offer.

 

[BillyBob65]

Hey its been nice discussing the word of God with you all. I realize I am on a Calinest board and there is no way we are going to come to unity on the scriptures for we both are on separate ends of the spectrum but I did enjoy the back and forth. It is now starting to get out of control and I will humbly bow out and leave you to your theology and pray that you excel in your walk in the light. May God bless you all richly and until next time see you around.

 

[Arial]

I have addressed the scriptures you posted you just reject my answer and then say I did not address them. am not not going to rehash all I have already addressed.

No, you have not. If you had I would not say you hadn't.

You say there is no offer then just what is the gospel if it is not God calling you to ACCEPT the offer of salvation

Ever hear of the loaded question fallacy? I.e. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Well, that first portion of the sentence is a loaded statement fallacy. And it is based on your interpretation of "offer". So if I say the gospel is not "offered" I do not mean that it is not available which is what you make it sound like I mean. Salvation is not something that is offered it is something that is given, by grace. That means no one deserves it, not even by "choosing right". God is not calling anyone to "accept" his offer. He is dispensing a gift to men. Why is it you can't recognize that if salvation is left to a sinner's choice, and a sinner wants nothing to do with God, that the Father sent his son to mostly die in vain? Is that how you think God would treat his Son? And do you think God is a beggar?

It is not universal salvation there is something that sets it apart something you are required to do to receive the salvation offered.

And there you said it right out in the open. Works righteousness. Right up there with Pope Billy's declaration that you can believe in the person and work of Jesus all you want to, but your sins are still your burden to bear, they still condemn you, until you get dunked in the water. You teach the insufficiency of Christ.

Also, if you are required to do something in order to be saved, salvation is no longer of grace. You earned salvation.

WE have already covered just how God gives to christ those that are being saved it is through the gospel you just can see it because it will mess up you theology.

Where have I ever said that it was any other way but through the gospel? Does everyone who hears the gospel believe it? Why do some believe it, and some don't? Or is it as you say, everyone believes it but decide to un- believe it?

You said "God's electing is for the Son, and he purchases them with his blood." Yes this is what I have been saying alone. Thank you for finally getting it. God's electing is through the son

Excuse me! What sort of sleight of hand is that? We are not in agreement. For the Son and through the Son are nowhere near the same thing.

God's electing is through the son through the gospel it is the gospel that has the power unto salvation.It is through the death burial and resurrection (his blood) that we are the elect the chosen the called out.God planned this method of salvation through Christ before the foundation of the world.

You have yet to demonstrate that with Scripture, exegeted, contextually, and expositionally. You only keep repeating it. But it hasn't come true yet.

Example: Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Me: yes that is what it says and means it is for the remission of sin and there are other scriptures to support that is what it means.

You: For does not mean for as in order to but rather because of and then you write paragraphs to ty to make it fit.

Now who would you say is seeking loop holes to verify their theory.

Good luck trying to revive that "conversation". I am not taking the bait, even though you deliberately misrepresent my position and my presentations in order to validate yourself.

Okay I did not make my point clear on believing yes He that believes has already made the choice and ACCEPTED it but what is it that he believed? The gospel call the offer.

Did anyone say something different from that? Did you forget what you were arguing about again?