Justification by Faith Alone

[Arial]

Good Morning!




Thank you for your kind tone, and your careful effort to go point-by-point. I pray your time with your family is restful and blessed—and it’s good to know you’re taking the time to visit grandkids and help where needed. That’s a ministry all its own. I also want to say I appreciate your step-by-step approach; in a thread like this, where deep truths are being handled, that’s the best way forward.





Let me begin with this:


I do not believe you're denying that faith is a work of God. You’ve quoted John 6 rightly—“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent”—and I accept your affirmation that your faith is not self-generated. I also appreciate your desire to keep the Gospel central.

That said, my concern (and likely others’) is not what you deny, but how your language tends to functionally obscure God’s role. The way you paraphrase Scripture, omit critical verses, and structure your examples often shifts the emphasis away from divine initiative toward human response. Even if unintended, that pattern misrepresents the Gospel’s nature.

For example: You referenced John 1:12, emphasizing those who “received Him” were given the right to become children of God. That’s true. But your omission of verse 13 is more than incidental:

“...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Verse 13 is not an afterthought—it is the foundation of verse 12. The right to become children is entirely dependent on divine birth.



The Greek structure of verse 13 is precise and emphatic in excluding human causation:

• οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων (not out of bloods)
• οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (nor out of the will of the flesh)
• οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (nor out of the will of a man)
• ἀλλ’ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (but out of God they were born)

Each clause systematically eliminates every conceivable natural or human avenue for new birth:

• Lineage (blood),
• Personal desire or resolve (will of the flesh),
• External influence or human agency (will of man).

The verb ἐγεννήθησαν (“they were born”) is aorist passive—highlighting that the action is something done to them, not something they performed. This is a grammatical demonstration of monergism.

Daniel Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, notes that the passive voice here is significant in expressing “divine agency” with no human cooperation. In other words, man contributes nothing to regeneration.

This aligns perfectly with Paul’s teaching elsewhere:

• Romans 9:16: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
• James 1:18: “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth…”
• 1 Peter 1:3: “He has caused us to be born again…”
• Ephesians 2:4–5: “But God… made us alive together with Christ… by grace you have been saved.”

In fact, the entire nature of effectual calling rests on this foundation.

Louis Berkhof, in Systematic Theology, writes:



This isn’t just an invitation—it’s a resurrection.

This is the truth echoed in the threefold denial in John 1:13. Salvation is not by genetics, grit, or good intentions. It is by God’s sovereign grace.

To speak of receiving Christ without emphasizing the divine cause of that receiving is to place the weight on the wrong side of the equation. Your language often suggests the decisive factor lies in the person who chooses, not the God who raises the dead to life.





Okay, but how exactly does Scripture say we receive Christ?

The answer is: by grace through faith.
That faith—Scripture says—is revealed and granted by God.

I mentioned this in the post you're replying to: the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, Lord, and Savior is not something we produce. It’s something that’s revealed to us by the Father (cf. Matt. 16:17, 1 Cor. 12:3). When that happens—when we truly believe it's really true and Jesus is Lord and Savior—we are saved. That’s what saving faith is: not mere intellectual agreement, but spirit-born trust in the finished work of Christ.

And that’s really it—faith alone in Christ alone. That’s all that is required for our justification. The moment we believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again on the third day for our salvation, we are united to Him by faith and declared righteous in Him That’s the Gospel. After that, the believer will naturally desire to confess that faith and join with the brethren—but that’s fruit, not the root.




Your inclusion of this story was excellent hyperlink. I agree wholeheartedly—the tax collector was justified not by works but by faith. But even here, we should ask: Why did he humble himself while the Pharisee exalted himself?

Jesus tells us in Luke 10:21:

“...You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children…”

The difference between the tax collector and the Pharisee is not that one chose better but that one was shown mercy and given humility by grace through His recognition of God.

I think it’s important to remember that when God reveals Himself—truly reveals Himself—it always humbles. Just ask Isaiah, who cried “Woe is me!” (Isaiah 6:5), or Job, who said “Now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5–6).

When the Lord grants that kind of sight, it undoes us. And that seeing isn’t something we produce or discover on our own—it’s something given. As Jesus told Peter, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). Or again, “God... has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6).

So the more clearly we see Him, the more clearly we see ourselves—and the more we are humbled. That kind of revelation doesn’t puff us up—it puts us on our faces. And that is a gift, not a badge.

Very good post. The ambiguous language of @Eternally-Grateful posts, often even obscures the argument. The argument being the assertion that faith is what causes the new birth. Then with more ambiguity of language, or sometimes diversion into slightly other topics and misapplied scriptures, (according to Reformed theology which is what is being argued against) the topic becomes not faith as the cause of the new birth, but the role of faith in salvation. Or how one comes to that faith. Or, "faith" becomes something that is not our faith in this argument for free will, therefore not a work, but something that is offered with the option to accept or reject.

So, that being said, a very strong point of your post is it's staying on track with the issue to illustrate, not these side issues, or whether or not the poster considers "faith" a work, but that it is impossible for saving faith to exist in a person who has not been born again from above, with sound scriptural support as well as exegetical verification. And that these truths that are necessary for salvation are not sourced in human reasoning (though human reasoning is not absent) but that they are revealed to a stony heart through regeneration of that heart by God. Indeed a resurrection. A new birth.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Trying to take this slowly and point by point, I also have some questions which I ask in sincerity

Let me begin with this:


I do not believe you're denying that faith is a work of God. You’ve quoted John 6 rightly—“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent”—and I accept your affirmation that your faith is not self-generated. I also appreciate your desire to keep the Gospel central.

That said, my concern (and likely others’) is not what you deny, but how your language tends to functionally obscure God’s role. The way you paraphrase Scripture, omit critical verses, and structure your examples often shifts the emphasis away from divine initiative toward human response. Even if unintended, that pattern misrepresents the Gospel’s nature.

How do you mean? How can me do what God asked me to do obscure Gods role?

For example: You referenced John 1:12, emphasizing those who “received Him” were given the right to become children of God. That’s true.

All I am doing is not cutting and pasting specific verses. I am quoting verses as they come into my head. We do this all the time, Ido not carry a bible with me so I can open to a passage and read the passage, I use the words of scripture.

He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already is not a paraphrase as such, it is what Jesus in effect said.

Jesus also explained what it many to believe and what it means to not believe using the bronze serpent as an example

And he also said, they are condemned because they did not believe in jesus.

But your omission of verse 13 is more than incidental:

“...who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

This is again what I mean, I did not omit the verses. They were just not applicable with what I was saying, nor do they change what I said.

Again, I have numerous times explained vs 13 to show I agree with you. It was not by my will that I was saved, IE I did not will myself to heaven, i do not have that power. Non of us do,

Verse 13 is not an afterthought—it is the foundation of verse 12. The right to become children is entirely dependent on divine birth.

Actually I disagree . Vs 13 is just John setting the record straight

1. I am not born of God by birth (the jew thought because they were from abraham, by birth that were saved)
2. Not by the will of the flesh - we can not will ourselves to heaven by doing good deeds. By getting to heaven the way we want to. Ignoring the true gospel. Or by coming to some special revelation or faith by myself. We do not have the power to do any of this.
3. Not by the will of man - I can not will my children to heaven, I can not will my parents or any loved one to heaven.

There is only one way to heaven, God was sent to us, dont be like those who recieved him not. Take What God came to give and Recieve it.

Those who did were given the right to become children of God, why? because they had faith.

The Greek structure of verse 13 is precise and emphatic in excluding human causation:

• οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων (not out of bloods)
• οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκός (nor out of the will of the flesh)
• οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός (nor out of the will of a man)
• ἀλλ’ ἐκ Θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν (but out of God they were born)

Each clause systematically eliminates every conceivable natural or human avenue for new birth:

• Lineage (blood),
• Personal desire or resolve (will of the flesh),
• External influence or human agency (will of man).

The verb ἐγεννήθησαν (“they were born”) is aorist passive—highlighting that the action is something done to them, not something they performed. This is a grammatical demonstration of monergism.

Ok again, I am not sure what your trying to prove here. i never said it was by my own causation. it was by God. So I am confused why you are trying to prove a point I already agree with as true.

We agree 100 Percent on what vs 13 says, we are not in disagreement.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Odd that I was not not notified that you posted this. I fell on it by accident. I do not want to respond quickly or without careful thought. So I will put this someplace in which I can respond in kind. And then post back in this thread.. Please do not think I am ignoring you. As I may respond to simpler things in other threads or simpler comments in here before I post a response to this and your next response to me..

It is a blessed time with kids,, Hope to go to the creek today and swim, but storms are in the forcast.. We will see.

God bless you sister. And thank you for trying to understand.

It's truly fine. I just reread the second post and my tone sounds poor in places, it was morning so forgive me. I am not trying to be accusatory, nor trying to pick a fight. I ask your forgiveness. If I'm tired I don't think about grammar or perception as much, to my shame.

I thank you again for taking the time to work through these truths with care and seriousness. It’s always a blessing to engage with someone who longs to see faith bearing fruit and God rightly honored. I’m in full agreement with you—true saving faith is never alone. God’s people do hear His voice, and they do follow (John 10:27). Obedience matters. But it must be rightly ordered.

The point I’m gently pressing is this: our response is never the root of salvation. It is always the fruit. Scripture is emphatic—justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. And even that faith is not something we generate; it is a gift (Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 1:29). We really do believe. We really do trust. But we do so because God has first acted—because He opens blind eyes, gives new hearts, and brings the dead to life.

That’s the heartbeat of the Gospel: not that God reacts to us, but that He has decisively acted in Christ to save. Jesus wasn’t lifted up because mankind had earned a second chance. He was lifted up because the Father had decreed, from before the foundation of the world, to redeem a people for Himself (Eph. 1:4–5; 1 Pet. 1:20). The Son came willingly to accomplish that work, and the Spirit applies it perfectly in time. It is a sovereign, Triune rescue.

Justification, then, is not God rewarding our correct response. It is His declaration over a sinner who has been united to Christ by faith: “Righteous—not in yourself, but in My Son.” That verdict isn’t delayed until we prove ourselves sincere. It is given the moment we believe. And even that believing is the result of grace.

So yes, we look. Yes, we believe. But the emphasis must remain squarely on Christ—not on our response. The Gospel is not about what we muster. It’s about what Christ accomplished.

Brother, I trust you know this. But sometimes in our efforts to explain, we can tilt the focus ever so slightly toward man’s part. And when it comes to justification, that’s a shift we simply can’t afford. Because if even one thread of our salvation hangs on us, it all unravels. But praise God, it doesn’t. It hangs on Christ—secure and complete.

May His grace continue to guide our words and ground our confidence.


In Christ,
Hazelelponi

 

[Arial]

How do you mean? How can me do what God asked me to do obscure Gods role?

What was it YOU did? Was it what YOU did that caused God to respond to you? That aside, the response to what was said is a diversionary tactic, whether intentional or unintentional, in that it only entertains a small portion of the post it quotes, and does not address the content of the entire post to refute it. It turns the focus away from the content and onto you, while at the same time, turning the subject away from the issue. Which is, what comes first, faith or the new birth. I know that you will not reply to my posts, so that is not why I am posting this. I am trying to get you to focus so that your responses are in good faith. They may be in good faith, I can't read your mind, but they do not promote a good faith discussion of point, counterpoint. That is why you get frustrated and the rest of us along with you.

All I am doing is not cutting and pasting specific verses. I am quoting verses as they come into my head. We do this all the time, Ido not carry a bible with me so I can open to a passage and read the passage, I use the words of scripture.

Diversionary instead of dealing with post content. Focus shifts to you and not the subject of the conversation. Also, your method here will never deal with what another person is saying, and is an incorrect way of handling the word of God. Any one can open another window on their device and search for the scriptures being used. In Biblehub and Bible Gateway, when the scripture comes up, it will give the option of seeing the full chapter and makes putting everything in context easy. You can request the translation you want or in Biblehub it will give the single quote in many different translations. Clicking on any specific translation will bring up the full chapter. Having the two windows (reducing both windows to half screen) open side by side is very helpful in constructing a response.

This is again what I mean, I did not omit the verses. They were just not applicable with what I was saying, nor do they change what I said.

Again, I have numerous times explained vs 13 to show I agree with you. It was not by my will that I was saved, IE I did not will myself to heaven, i do not have that power. Non of us do,

Diversionary. The subject is which comes first, the new birth or faith. Not, "willing" or "not willing" oneself to heaven.

Actually I disagree . Vs 13 is just John setting the record straight

1. I am not born of God by birth (the jew thought because they were from abraham, by birth that were saved)
2. Not by the will of the flesh - we can not will ourselves to heaven by doing good deeds. By getting to heaven the way we want to. Ignoring the true gospel. Or by coming to some special revelation or faith by myself. We do not have the power to do any of this.
3. Not by the will of man - I can not will my children to heaven, I can not will my parents or any loved one to heaven.

There is only one way to heaven, God was sent to us, dont be like those who recieved him not. Take What God came to give and Recieve it.

Those who did were given the right to become children of God, why? because they had faith.

Diversionary. The subject is not "willing oneself to heaven". It is "which comes first, the new birth of faith"?

Ok again, I am not sure what your trying to prove here. i never said it was by my own causation. it was by God. So I am confused why you are trying to prove a point I already agree with as true.

Because you are claiming that faith precedes the new birth and is the cause of it. Both John 3:3 and John 1:12-13 are proving that the new birth precedes and is the cause of faith, and the new birth is therefore entirely God and would of necessity include the necessary faith. As @Hazelelponi stated, who Jesus is and what he did and how he did it, is revealed knowledge (see Jesus' response to Peter when Peter was astonished and said, "You are the Son of God!"). BTW Son of God when applied to Jesus is a declaration of his deity in the incarnation. It is not acquired knowledge, as is proven by all those who hear or read the witness of Jesus and the entire Bible, and do not "see".

We agree 100 Percent on what vs 13 says, we are not in disagreement.

I will let @Hazelelponi deal with this directly. From my perception, you both agree the statement is absolutely true. You do not agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

It's truly fine. I just reread the second post and my tone sounds poor in places, it was morning so forgive me. I am not trying to be accusatory, nor trying to pick a fight. I ask your forgiveness. If I'm tired I don't think about grammar or perception as much, to my shame.

I just saw this. I have not even finished your first post yet. I will keep this in mind when I read the second.

We all can come across accusatory or in frustration say or act in ways we would not normally act. Plus morning without enough coffee? Forget it. lol!!!!!

 

[Hazelelponi]

I just saw this. I have not even finished your first post yet. I will keep this in mind when I read the second.

We all can come across accusatory or in frustration say or act in ways we would not normally act. Plus morning without enough coffee? Forget it. lol!!!!!

I'm just now making coffee. Decided I could use some (my whole day is just off today!).

Actually I disagree . Vs 13 is just John setting the record straight

I understand you said you’re unsure what point I’m trying to prove by quoting the Greek structure of John 1:13, and that you believe we’re actually in agreement. But I want to gently suggest that your interpretation and the traditional reading do differ in a key place—specifically, in how you understand the timing and causation of regeneration and faith.

You’ve interpreted verse 13 as John simply “setting the record straight”—excluding works-based or lineage-based claims to salvation. But that interpretation overlooks the precise grammatical structure of the verse.

Daniel Wallace—one of the foremost evangelical Greek grammarians—notes that the verb ἐγεννήθησαν ("they were born") is aorist passive, meaning the action is entirely received. It’s not something the subject performs. That grammatical choice is significant. It rules out the idea that the new birth is triggered by faith. The structure makes regeneration prior to and causative of faith, not vice versa.

The verse isn’t merely saying, “You didn’t save yourself.” It’s saying, “You weren’t even spiritually alive until God acted.” You weren’t born by your own belief, but born of God.

Louis Berkhof reinforces this in Systematic Theology, writing:

“Regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit. It is a creative act of God in the inner life of man... It is a change that takes place below consciousness and prior to faith” (Berkhof, p. 472).

This is why I emphasize precision. It’s not about nitpicking grammar—it’s about honoring the inspired structure of God’s Word. If verse 13 is what explains verse 12 (which it grammatically and theologically does), then receiving Christ and becoming a child of God are effects of the new birth, not causes of it.

When we reverse that order, even unintentionally, we risk preaching a Gospel that subtly depends on man’s response instead of God’s mercy. And as you know, that’s not the Gospel of grace.


Oh, the depths of the wisdom and mercy of our God! That He should look upon those dead in sin and speak life; that He should grant faith where there was only rebellion; that He should clothe the unworthy in the righteousness of His Son! All of salvation is from Him, through Him, and to Him.

To Christ be the glory—for the cross that secured our justification, the Spirit who grants us life, and the Father who sovereignly calls us to Himself. What grace is this, that we should believe and be called children of God!

Soli Deo Gloria,
Hazelelponi

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Daniel Wallace, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, notes that the passive voice here is significant in expressing “divine agency” with no human cooperation. In other words, man contributes nothing to regeneration.

This aligns perfectly with Paul’s teaching elsewhere:

• Romans 9:16: “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
• James 1:18: “Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth…”
• 1 Peter 1:3: “He has caused us to be born again…”
• Ephesians 2:4–5: “But God… made us alive together with Christ… by grace you have been saved.”

In fact, the entire nature of effectual calling rests on this foundation.

Louis Berkhof, in Systematic Theology, writes:

Trying to continue. Sorry it is taking so long

True, i contributing nothing to salvation.

To contribute something we would have to do things. like get baptized. Obey laws. Doing christian or religious tradition or ceremony, etc etc.

The jew tried to add circumcision.

The catholic adds the Eucharist

Many legalists add water baptism as their contributing work.

In fact, if we look at maybe 90% of the world’s religions. We see they believe Man saves himself. By being good enough, By doing specific religious ceremonies. Or by whatever means one must do to save themselves or as the man discussed earlier said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life.”

There is nothing you can do to merit salvation.to inherit eternal life. Or earn it, Paul called the religious jews of Galatia fools because they thought they started in the. Spirit (faith) but thought they must perfect in the flesh (works)

You and I should be united in apposing these false gospels. Not fighting each other on semantics of which appears to seperate us.

This isn’t just an invitation—it’s a resurrection.

This is the truth echoed in the threefold denial in John 1:13. Salvation is not by genetics, grit, or good intentions. It is by God’s sovereign grace.

To speak of receiving Christ without emphasizing the divine cause of that receiving is to place the weight on the wrong side of the equation. Your language often suggests the decisive factor lies in the person who chooses, not the God who raises the dead to life.

Good thing I am not doing this..lol

Howevver, i think it is in invitation. The message from the garden is to repent.. the gospel sent to the world is a gospel of repentance for remission of sin. Even Peter when asked. What must we do. Said repent. And you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Okay, but how exactly does Scripture say we receive Christ?

The answer is: by grace through faith.
That faith—Scripture says—is revealed and granted by God.

Yes it is revealed. And I agree it is granted.

Not everyone who claims they have faith is saved by God. Because as explained earlier. There faith was not in God. But in self..

I mentioned this in the post you're replying to: the recognition of Jesus as the Son of God, Lord, and Savior is not something we produce. It’s something that’s revealed to us by the Father (cf. Matt. 16:17, 1 Cor. 12:3).

100% agree..

When that happens—when we truly believe it's really true and Jesus is Lord and Savior—we are saved.

But we have to believe

We are saved by grace alone. But it is recieved in faith.

If I do not trust God. I will not Recieve his gift.

Again, in john 1, He came into his own but they did nto recieve him, why? They did not trust him.

The ones who did. He granted then adoption

That’s what saving faith is: not mere intellectual agreement, but spirit-born trust in the finished work of Christ.

Faith in the greek means I have an assurance in, A trust, A confidence, and it is not blind faith, it is based on evidence.

The determining factor is what is my faith in?

christ alone

Or christ plus my works

Or my works.

Again, I think we can determine by talking to someone and watching them what the truth is

And that’s really it—faith alone in Christ alone. That’s all that is required for our justification.

100%. In Christ. Not in Christ plus self. Christ plus works. Or self.

The moment we believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again on the third day for our salvation, we are united to Him by faith and declared righteous in Him That’s the Gospel.

YES!! And being justified, we are now made alive in christ (the difference is you think it was before faith?

After that, the believer will naturally desire to confess that faith and join with the brethren—but that’s fruit, not the root.

100% again, we are in complete agreement.. I was baptized a year after I was born again, I used that to confess Jesus as my savior and give a testimony.. But then again, those in the building when I walked the aisle also know because of the joy I had when I came out.

Your inclusion of this story was excellent hyperlink. I agree wholeheartedly—the tax collector was justified not by works but by faith. But even here, we should ask: Why did he humble himself while the Pharisee exalted himself?

Jesus tells us in Luke 10:21:

“...You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children…”

The difference between the tax collector and the Pharisee is not that one chose better but that one was shown mercy and given humility by grace through His recognition of God.

I see it differently. Jesus did tell us. But in a different spot. In the passage you quoted I agree. The people who think they are wise. And have all the answers. god has hidden the truth from them.

Something must happen for the wise to hear. They must become humble.

Jesus said in Matt

Matthew 5:3
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven

The word poor here is sometimes misunderstood. Because of a flaw in the English language. It literally means to become bankrupt. To come to the end of ourselves. Who brings us to the end of ourselves but God. As long s we believe there is any hope in self. We will never recieve or trust God. Because we have to much faith in self

The pharisee trusted self.

The tax collector was so bankrupt. He could not even look up to God. And cried out for his mercy.

It was because the tax collector begged for Gods mercy, as he was made poor in spirit. he showed it to him. And he entered the kingdom of Heaven

I think it’s important to remember that when God reveals Himself—truly reveals Himself—it always humbles. Just ask Isaiah, who cried “Woe is me!” (Isaiah 6:5), or Job, who said “Now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5–6).

Amen, God brings us to bankruptcy in spirit.. that is against human nature.. God must do this. We will never freely even admit it unless God humbles us

When the Lord grants that kind of sight, it undoes us. And that seeing isn’t something we produce or discover on our own—it’s something given. As Jesus told Peter, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17). Or again, “God... has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6).

Yes.. He brings us to the end of ourselves. To call out to him as the tax collector. Or in a different word. To recieve his gift of life

So the more clearly we see Him, the more clearly we see ourselves—and the more we are humbled. That kind of revelation doesn’t puff us up—it puts us on our faces. And that is a gift, not a badge.

This is a lifetime work.. Amen. But even in salvation. Me recieving him is not something I can puff myself for. Because I am bankrupt.. I see nothing in myself that can help me. It’s why I fell to my knees. And that was not of my own power

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yes, I know—and this is exactly what I’ve been saying all along, ever since you seemed to try and blur that very point.

How did i tru to blur it. I have been honest wiht everything i have said. i did not try to be sneaky.

I actually carry a twelve-page handout with me—it’s Wayne Grudem’s chapter on sin. That’s my introduction to the Gospel: This is what you are.

It might not be the most popular approach, and I’m not sure it’s the best “intro” anyone’s ever thought of, but in today’s world, most people don’t even recognize their sin. And until they do—until they see the depth of their depravity—they can’t begin to understand the Gospel. We can’t grasp salvation until we see both God rightly and ourselves rightly.

Yes, this goes with what Jesus said. Unless one becomes poor in spirit..

Of course, romans 1 says they not even see their sin, they know they are rightfully judged.

They instead of acknowledge it Hide it in their hearts. An make up their own Gods who will not judge them.

A pharisee had his own God per se, his God was his misunderstanding of the law. Thinking to be wise. They became fools//

I’m fairly certain the biggest problem with my little handout is that it reminds people they’re not who they’ve convinced themselves they are. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

Yes amen.. I grew up with my God judging personal sin. And saying these people must clean up their life first. This is not the gospel. The first step is to acknowledge our sin debt, and only God can help us do that.. by our own power and by our own nature we will hide this truth.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone else carries around twelve-page handouts on sin in their purse. Probably not. But I do. I’m that woman—the one who decided that if I’m going to be ready for anything, I might as well be ready to look someone in the eye and tell them, gently but clearly, that they have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

I like this, that is what I like about my current church. It does not judge people personally. it just wants them to see the truth, we all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory.

We all are in the same boat. And we all require grace.. and that grace is only offered based on Christ,

Because here’s the thing: our biggest problem today is that we no longer recognize sin. And if we can’t see sin, we can’t see anything else clearly either. We think we just need a bit of moral spackle and we’re good to go—straight to heaven, no transformation necessary. Maybe a golf course when we get there, if we’re still not that interested in God.

100%

But that’s not the Gospel. That’s not reality. If you don’t believe you’re sinning against God in action, attitude, and nature—constantly—then the cross doesn’t make any sense. Christ’s death becomes unnecessary in a world where we’ve convinced ourselves we’re already fine.

I'm sure I have digressed at this point, I'm just talkative I guess.

We agree 100% here.. Amen and Amen

I only have one question. If (as I have been told here) this cannot be known UNTIL one is born again or regenerated….. well I hope you see my Delilah

Your reference to Abraham, Noah, and the Hebrews 11 saints, notes that they “received a promise” and responded. That’s true. But we must not forget: the call came first.

Yes.. The call came, first.

• God came to Abraham before he believed (Gen. 12:1-4)
• God warned Noah before he built.
• The people in Numbers 21 heard the promise before they looked.

Faith was always a response to God’s initiative. As Romans 10:17 says, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ”

100%

And the call is not effectual for everyone, but only for those whom God in His sovereign decree elected to salvation.

Here is where we tend to seperate
I disagree . God came again to his people but they did not recieve him.

He did not keep the truth from them, he called all of them.

It's a main focus of yours

Yes. Because in my mind, it showed everything I see in one reading

yes, and one I already replied to you concerning. Did you actually read my post before replying?

Yes I read. And that was my response to what I understood you to be saying, Maybe I misunderstood you?

You know it's fine with me if you wait to respond until you have the time to read my posts and address what I said I'm in no rush. I spend hours responding to just one post in a thread like this, I'm not just hammering out the first thing that comes to mind. I am trying to make certain I'm understanding the points your making and respond to your points clearly and witth Scriptural accuracy.

Its more than a game to me. So please take all the time you would like.

Same here.. would take time then rush and never come to an understanding of either side.

As they are want to do



Did Adam actually die the second death?

No. The second death will happen ate the great white throne

Revelation 20:14
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death

That seems unlikely, considering the way God clothed him and sustained him afterward. He was punished, yes—cast out of the garden—but also covered. That doesn't look like final condemnation to me.

Me either. In fact. It shows that he continued to trust God.

Also, I have to push back a little here: you're speaking of God as if He's reacting—like man's rebellion somehow took Him by surprise and forced His hand. But that doesn’t square with the rest of Scripture.

actually God knew it would happen. And already had a plan in place. At least thats how I see it.

God didn’t just “respond” in the wilderness with serpents because things spiraled out of control. The serpent pole wasn’t Plan B. It was part of the plan all along—a typological image of Christ, lifted up for the healing of those who look to Him in faith (John 3:14–15). That didn’t emerge from chaos; it was decreed. Designed. It preached the Gospel before the cross.

Yes. God used this to show a spiritual truth.

He does this all the time, He takes our actions. And his response as a tool to teach

We shouldn’t frame God’s dealings with mankind as if He’s perpetually reacting to our failures. Left to ourselves, of course we fall. But when we fall, it’s not because God lost track—it’s because He withheld restraint for His own sovereign purpose. That’s a hard truth, but a biblical one. Scripture tells us repeatedly that when man plunges into sin, it is often because God has given him over or withheld restraint
That’s why I personally stay alert when I see even the tiniest bit of restraint lifted. It’s usually not random. It’s sometimes judgment—or sometimes mercy preparing the way for deeper understanding. But either way, it’s not reactionary. It’s intentional and it's to us to learn from it.

I do not think you are understanding me here. I do not think God reacts..

They sinned
He punished
They cried out
He responded to their prayers
He created a way of healing and gave them a chance to be saved and told them how
Those who recieved his gift. Were saved. Those who continued in unbelief were not.

Perfect picture of the cross

You mention that unless we are made alive, “we remain dead for all eternity.” But biblically, the consequence is far more severe than simply “remaining” in a state of death. Scripture doesn’t describe a neutral stagnation—it describes judgment. Those not made alive by the Spirit of God don’t merely stay dead—they are judged and cast into the second death, the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14–15). That’s not just theological terminology; that’s final condemnation.

This is the second death.

But the main point I was making if we are not made alive, we will never be made alive,

Our physical death—the first death—is not the end. It functions as a legal threshold, leading into the courtroom of divine judgment. This is precisely why the tree of life was barred from Adam and Eve after the Fall (Gen. 3:22–24): not as a reaction, but as a covenantal consequence. As Kline notes in Kingdom Prologue, God “rejected Adam from the holy realm,” and this banishment was not merely punitive—it was juridical. The exile was part of God's covenantal execution of judgment upon sin .

Yes. But to those of us saved. As Jesus said in John 5. Well here I will let hin speak

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.

Who’s is it that will not come to judgment on that fateful day?

Those who see and believe.

Going to break this up again, it is long and do not want to lose sight by having to much in one post.

Hope you are blessed