Justification by the faith OF Jesus Christ

[Ladodgers6]

Do you think that Satan does not understand any of the spiritual things of God? It is not that I think the carnal mind can understand the spiritual things of God; rather, I think God is fully capable of. and does through His written word, effectively communicate with the "carnal" mind of man.

To your previous posting of 1 Corinthians 2:14, if you would example that carefully, you would understand that entire chapter is Paul's defense of his own divine revelation, not your understanding of anything.

So, if I understand you correctly then every sinner apart from God's Grace can understand and believe?

 

[JIM]

So, if I understand you correctly then every sinner apart from God's Grace can understand and believe?

I didn't say that.

I know a bunch of the justified, those who believe, do not understand a lot of what God says in His Word, the Bible. Understanding and believing are two different things, fortunately. Do you think Pharoah understood what Moses was telling him what God said? Do you think Judas understood? You and others who think as you do seem to refuse to accept that God through the Holy Spirit can communicate effectively with even the lost. Whether or not they believe and act on what they understand is something different altogether.

 

[Ladodgers6]

I didn't say that.

Explain, please.

I know a bunch of the justified, those who believe, do not understand a lot of what God says in His Word, the Bible. Understanding and believing are two different things, fortunately.

Huh? Scratching my head. So, are you saying that sinners can understand from God's grace, just not believe?

Do you think Pharoah understood what Moses was telling him what God said? Do you think Judas understood? You and others who think as you do seem to refuse to accept that God through the Holy Spirit can communicate effectively with even the lost.

How is this not by Grace Alone? Now as far as Pharaoh, he had his own gods, he resented Moses and his God, right? It took the plagues to do away with the Israelites because they cause problems for him. But then changed his mind because of his pride.

Whether or not they believe and act on what they understand is something different altogether.

This is the problem is the Free-Willers or Synergistic positions. They tend to locate their salvation in their response, rather in the Gospel itself. The problem with sinners, is the heart. Without Grace the sinner can do nothing to save themselves. Even Arminius the opponent of Calvinism even agrees that without Regeneration the sinner cannot will, understand or do anything in saving himself.

 

[JIM]

Explain, please.

Explain that I didn't say that? Seriously?

Huh? Scratching my head. So, are you saying that sinners can understand from God's grace, just not believe?

Yes, of course.

How is this not by Grace Alone? Now as far as Pharaoh, he had his own gods, he resented Moses and his God, right? It took the plagues to do away with the Israelites because they cause problems for him. But then changed his mind because of his pride.

And you think Pharoah didn't understand or believe what Moses told him?

This is the problem is the Free-Willers or Synergistic positions. They tend to locate their salvation in their response, rather in the Gospel itself. The problem with sinners, is the heart. Without Grace the sinner can do nothing to save themselves. Even Arminius the opponent of Calvinism even agrees that without Regeneration the sinner cannot will, understand or do anything in saving himself.

Free-Willers do not think they save themselves. That is the horrendous strawman that determinists or monergists raise and prop up.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Explain that I didn't say that? Seriously?

You are ambiguous in your comments. I asked you if you believe that people can think, understand, and believe apart from God's Grace, right? Then you replied, "did I say that?" I asked for clarity on your part, to explain what you believe. Why are you getting upset for no apparent reason. Can sinners think, understand, and believe apart from Grace?​

Yes, of course.

You can expand on this point? Or just because you say yes, it's true?

And you think Pharoah didn't understand or believe what Moses told him?

Well, if he understood would he have continued through the plagues? He thought he was mightier than Moses' God. Sinners pride before the Fall. Adam thought he could be like God, and fell, correct?

Free-Willers do not think they save themselves. That is the horrendous strawman that determinists or monergists raise and prop up.

Is this the reason why you provide short answers? Because if you can define your position, I'll show you that it is not biblical. I used to be a Free-Willer Synergist. The reason why I abandoned it is because Grace of God is needed to save sinners from their lapse and sinful state. BTW, the position I once held and you hold to has been condemned by more churches throughout Church history. Google it, you'll see.

Here's my advice take it or leave it. Do your own due diligence and home-work. Understand Adam status before and the fall. What we lost, what sanctions were put on us after the Fall. How sin has alienated and separated us from God; that we have become sworn enemies and hostile toward God.
​

No One Is Righteous​

9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”​

I do not care about winning an argument, it's about the truth, that's all I care about. It will be hard for the prideful to seek the truth, because they want to seek something within that has value, but JIM, that's the problem; the carnal heart and mind of the sinner, needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit by God in Christ.​

 

[JIM]

I do not care about winning an argument, it's about the truth, that's all I care about. It will be hard for the prideful to seek the truth, because they want to seek something within that has value, but JIM, that's the problem; the carnal heart and mind of the sinner, needs to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit by God in Christ.​

Well, if that is what is needed, then surely God, in His infinite mercy and grace, has regenerated everyone. If not, then He is remiss by not doing so.

 

[Rella]

Let's make it simple.

Do you believe we are justified by faith alone?

Yes or no?

Yes

 

[Arial]

Free-Willers do not think they save themselves. That is the horrendous strawman that determinists or monergists raise and prop up.

Oh they are very careful to not think that, because to do so, to actually acknowledge that that is the natural conclusion of their theology, they know would not go over very well. So they say things like, "No Jesus saves me but I have to accept the gift. God would never violate my free will."

But according to that statement, the power of the cross sits powerless until someone comes along and says "Ok. If I am going to be a smart person, a good person. better than other people, I will choose this gift." (Door number 1.) So one might say the human is the ignition source of the effectiveness of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The other terrible error in the statement of free will is that it not only makes the human the one who determines whether the work of Jesus is effectual, it also becomes even more arrogant and dares to tell God what He will and will not do, what He should and should not do.

 

[Rella]

Oh they are very careful to not think that, because to do so, to actually acknowledge that that is the natural conclusion of their theology, they know would not go over very well. So they say things like, "No Jesus saves me but I have to accept the gift. God would never violate my free will."

But according to that statement, the power of the cross sits powerless until someone comes along and says "Ok. If I am going to be a smart person, a good person. better than other people, I will choose this gift." (Door number 1.) So one might say the human is the ignition source of the effectiveness of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The other terrible error in the statement of free will is that it not only makes the human the one who determines whether the work of Jesus is effectual, it also becomes even more arrogant and dares to tell God what He will and will not do, what He should and should not do.

Oh brother..... SMH

So they say things like, "No Jesus saves me but I have to accept the gift. God would never violate my free will."

For once in my life I am actually struck speechless just reading this.

 

[JIM]

Oh they are very careful to not think that, because to do so, to actually acknowledge that that is the natural conclusion of their theology, they know would not go over very well. So they say things like, "No Jesus saves me but I have to accept the gift. God would never violate my free will."

But according to that statement, the power of the cross sits powerless until someone comes along and says "Ok. If I am going to be a smart person, a good person. better than other people, I will choose this gift." (Door number 1.) So one might say the human is the ignition source of the effectiveness of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The other terrible error in the statement of free will is that it not only makes the human the one who determines whether the work of Jesus is effectual, it also becomes even more arrogant and dares to tell God what He will and will not do, what He should and should not do.

All of that is just so much Calvinistic Determinist Bovine Scat. "Free-Willers" do not think that, do not posit that, and do not preach that. Nor is it a natural conclusion of their theology. It is not about "accepting" a gift. And it doesn't even enter into a consideration of whether the work of Jesus is effectual. As I said, your view of such things is pure Bovine Scat.

 

[Arial]

All of that is just so much Calvinistic Determinist Bovine Scat. "Free-Willers" do not think that, do not posit that, and do not preach that. Nor is it a natural conclusion of their theology. It is not about "accepting" a gift. And it doesn't even enter into a consideration of whether the work of Jesus is effectual. As I said, your view of such things is pure Bovine Scat.

Watch the language. Psalm 141 "Set a guard over my mouth."

Using such things as "Calvinistic Determinism" and then degrading it is not a sound basis for presenting an argument or defense. It is your opinion of something. It contains no facts, no information at all, no argument against anything in particular, no refutation of whatever is in your mind (which no one can read) with any biblical support. It just sits there as angry words all by itself.

As you will notice in my post I made the statement that free willers are very careful not to think that they are responsible for their own salvation. As you so clearly demonstrated. And of course they don't preach it, if they did they would not have any leg to stand on instead of just the one they have. And I posit that thinking there theology through to its conclusion is something that is also carefully avoided, as I have not seen any who have. When I lay out the complete conclusion to what it says both about God and about the cross, I have yet to have any actually address what I say. Usually the response is "That's Calvinism!" As I stated above---not a valid defense. (I will lay it out for you if your would like, and give you a chance to address it.)

But as you cannot see the part I did lay out concerning the effectiveness of the cross, but only remarked that free will doesn't even enter into a consideration of whether the work of Jesus is effectual or that that statement itself indicts the theology as not considering the conclusions concerning the cross in their theology, I have little hope that you want to hear the truth of it or that you would actually address it with a cogent defense of your position.

 

[Arial]

Oh brother..... SMH



For once in my life I am actually struck speechless just reading this.

Is that your defense of your position? It doesn't even state your position.

 

[JIM]

As you will notice in my post I made the statement that free willers are very careful not to think that they are responsible for their own salvation.

And that "is not a sound basis for presenting an argument of defense. It is your opinion of something. It contains no facts, no information at all, no argument against anything in particular, no refutation of whatever is on your mind (which no one can read) with any biblical support. " Again, it is simply your opinion.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Well, if that is what is needed, then surely God, in His infinite mercy and grace, has regenerated everyone. If not, then He is remiss by not doing so.

Well JIM, in your paradigm, Grace has no purpose and is ineffective to save anyone. And if so, what does save the sinner? So, ultimately it is by the activity of the sinner that saves, not God's Grace.

 

[Arial]

And that "is not a sound basis for presenting an argument of defense. It is your opinion of something. It contains no facts, no information at all, no argument against anything in particular, no refutation of whatever is on your mind (which no one can read) with any biblical support. " Again, it is simply your opinion.

You demonstrated the accuracy of my statement when your responded with this:

"Free-Willers" do not think that, do not posit that, and do not preach that. Nor is it a natural conclusion of their theology. It is not about "accepting" a gift. And it doesn't even enter into a consideration of whether the work of Jesus is effectual. As I said, your view of such things is pure Bovine Scat.

My post since you isolated one sentence from it context and made an unfounded accusation against it by using my words addressing your post, that cannot be accurately applied to my post as I will demonstrate. That does not work as a defense of your position either.

Oh they are very careful to not think that, because to do so, to actually acknowledge that that is the natural conclusion of their theology, they know would not go over very well. So they say things like, "No Jesus saves me but I have to accept the gift. God would never violate my free will."

But according to that statement, the power of the cross sits powerless until someone comes along and says "Ok. If I am going to be a smart person, a good person. better than other people, I will choose this gift." (Door number 1.) So one might say the human is the ignition source of the effectiveness of the death and resurrection of Christ.

The other terrible error in the statement of free will is that it not only makes the human the one who determines whether the work of Jesus is effectual, it also becomes even more arrogant and dares to tell God what He will and will not do, what He should and should not do.

Facts and Information, argument against something in particular, refutation of what free will presents.
Are careful not to think that.
What is said as a defense.
Argument that is presented by free will.
Argument against it by presenting the natural conclusion of the free will view as to the cross.
Conclusion of what free will is doing when it declares that God would never violate our free will.

Biblical evidence: None given as none was needed. The premise of the post was that free will proponents refuse to think that their theology means that they are responsible for their own salvation.

 

[Rella]

Is that your defense of your position? It doesn't even state your position.

No. Not a defense of my position of justification....

I have a very firm belief in my gift of Free Will from our heavenly Father.

He gave it to the Angels, and he gave it to Adam else he would not have cautioned Adam to not eat that fruit.
If Adam did not have it he would not have. Eve is another case because Adam, as her mate, was ineffectual in explaining the command from God.

If the Angels have Free Will, (and 1/3 of them used that to disobey the Father and follow Satan) and Adam had Free Will do YOU really think that God would have not given that to man?

Men must have free will in order to choose to follow God. YES I understand God draws you... that is not the discussion.
BUT GOD in the end wants you to want and love Him and choose to follow him.

I am not in the John Calvin camp. I also am only about 60% in the other side like Jim explains. (Don't need to rehash his arguments.)

I am a fence sitter if you will.

But to insultingly say "free willers are very careful not to think that they are responsible for their own salvation."

Phrased like this it is almost like you think Free Will is a curse.

I cannot argue against such thought.

????? We are very careful to not think we are responsible for our own salvation?????

OF COURSE WE ARE NOT....

But when I choose to follow Christ's shed blood in my beliefs for my salvation... It is my choice. God did not predestine this for me, and He did not pre-select this for me.

But did God draw me toward that? The Four corners of the Holy Bible state that God Draws.

And I can assure you that in His infinite patience he has worked long and hard to get me to the point I am today.
I cannot say I was a willing candidate other then my fear of Hell fire.... And many a backsliding over my 76 years of life I found
God picking me up, dusting me off, and setting me on the path again... and again.

Always remember, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink has an abundance of truth.

 

[JIM]

Well JIM, in your paradigm, Grace has no purpose and is ineffective to save anyone. And if so, what does save the sinner? So, ultimately it is by the activity of the sinner that saves, not God's Grace.

The question should be not what but who. It is God that saves the sinner. I really don't know why that is a concept so hard for you to grasp.

 

[JIM]

The premise of the post was that free will proponents refuse to think that their theology means that they are responsible for their own salvation.

And, of course, since the premise is totally false, no logically correct conclusion can result.

 

[Arial]

I have a very firm belief in my gift of Free Will from our heavenly Father.

Are you defining having a will that freely makes choices as being the same thing as the will being free?

He gave it to the Angels, and he gave it to Adam else he would not have cautioned Adam to not eat that fruit.
If Adam did not have it he would not have. Eve is another case because Adam, as her mate, was ineffectual in explaining the command from God.

To say that if God gave free will to the angels then He quite naturally would give it to mankind is a logical fallacy. But Adam did have a will that was entirely free. Meaning that it was not coerced one direction or another. He was merely given a command. The will does not exist as an isolated entity within us, making choices from its own freedom that we then obey. It is our desires that move our choices, whatever desire is the strongest, that is the choice we make.

If the Angels have Free Will, (and 1/3 of them used that to disobey the Father and follow Satan) and Adam had Free Will do YOU really think that God would have not given that to man?

See above.

Men must have free will in order to choose to follow God. YES I understand God draws you... that is not the discussion.
BUT GOD in the end wants you to want and love Him and choose to follow him.

What does the Bible tell us about that? We find the answer in Romans 1-3. In Gen 3 we find that every man, woman, and child and the creation itself fell under a curse due to Adam's sin, and that none are righteous and none, no not one, seeks God. We see in Romans 12:12-14 we see the declaration that this is so. Sin came into the world through Adam, the curse is removed in Christ.

Rom 6 tells us that in our unregenerate state we are slaves to sin, as do many other passages show this, such as Eph 2:1-3. We, our whole being including our will are in bondage to sin. That is the opposite of free.

Since it is our desires that move the will, and not the will that moves our desires (and therefore the choices we make) the very fact that we are slaves of sin is why we cannot, because we will not, because we don't want to, choose God. And the only way to God is in Christ. "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

As to the spurious assertion that God wants us to want and love Him and choose to follow Him: God wants nothing. He has no wants, He is perfect and complete in Himself. He demands purely from the fact that He is the creator of all and all belong to Him, that His creatures love and obey Him.

The assertion also assumes the fallacy that God regenerating a person----which is a new birth in Christ as opposed to their natural position as in Adam, a new creation---so that then they are able to choose and do choose Him because they believe who He is, means that God forces them kicking and screaming to love Him. That analogy, though almost universal as an argument against Calvinism is so faulty and off the mark as to make me laugh every time I hear it. It does not consider the power and love and mercy of God at all, in so completely overpowering the chains that bind the person, and so overpowering the prince of darkness and his influence over them, as to make him as nothing but sand, and the chains dust. What manner of love is that?

I am a fence sitter if you will.

That is a painful and precarious place to sit.

But to insultingly say "free willers are very careful not to think that they are responsible for their own salvation."

Phrased like this it is almost like you think Free Will is a curse.

I cannot argue against such thought.

????? We are very careful to not think we are responsible for our own salvation?????

OF COURSE WE ARE NOT....

I rest my case.

But when I choose to follow Christ's shed blood in my beliefs for my salvation... It is my choice. God did not predestine this for me, and He did not pre-select this for me.

It is sad really that you would view God in that way. But do you not see the "I did it!" "I did it! Not God, Me!" in that statement.

But did God draw me toward that? The Four corners of the Holy Bible state that God Draws

All the drawing in the world will not break chains. So there is a real good chance you need to use theology (the study of God we are given by Him, about Him, from Him), the whole counsel of God, (the entire Bible and consistency of the truths taught in scripture,) hermeneutics, exegesis of many scriptures, not just proof texts, to re-evaluate what is meant by draw in those scriptures that use that word.

Always remember, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink has an abundance of truth.

That is a true statement. Unfortunately it has no application to the teachings of Calvinism on free will.

That teaching says, "Take and drink." and you do. John 4:14. The believer is given to Christ by the Father. (John 17:9-26; John 6:37,39.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

And, of course, since the premise is totally false, no logically correct conclusion can result.

If God saved you, what did you contribute to that?