Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

[TulipBee]

Thanks. Will take some time to respond fully to this and your other previous post.

I don't believe that anyone is actually born guilty of having committed a sin - rather, that we are all born tainted with the tendency to sin. Even Ps 51:5 allows for such an understanding. I am not aware of a scripture that explicitly says that we are born sinners.

What happens if the infant kept on doing right? At what point does the infant sin. What makes the infant sin?

 

[TulipBee]

What denomination teaches newborns don't sin until they do?

 

[Nang]

All human infants are born in a sinful condition, inherited from their sinful parents who conceive babies in sin.

From this innate sinful condition, all sinful acts emanate. Psalm 58:3

 

[Cross Reference]

Kind words there. Thank you.

It is quite simple for me. As do all Reformed, I hold Scripture to be the norming norm in all that I do, think, or say. Scripture is my sole rule of faith. I engage Scripture daily and am changed by it. I also am deeply appreciative of the old paths walked by those that have come before us whose words and arguments have survived the test of time. To assume the old saints have nothing to say to us is chronological snobbery. I take seriously the command of Scripture to take every word captive for the glory of God. That means every word written on topics relevant, whether I agree with what is written or not, for in them are potential nuggets of wisdom that I would be foolish to ignore.

Calvin, Turretin, Beza, Augustine, Hodge, Wesley, Bavinck, Gill, Shedd, and all the others are but mortal and fallen men, saved by the grace of God alone. That some of these men describe a system of beliefs taken from faithful summaries of what Scripture teaches is a gift from God that should not be overlooked. God has gifted some with teaching and exhortation abilities. Why should we deny ourselves of those so gifted? For those that do so, one wonders why he or she even bothers to engage in internet discussions on matters of the faith, for they are participating and often benefiting from the very same "words of men" that they would decry about to others, especially Calvinists, in their feigned self-righteousness.

So, no, Calvin is not my regula fidei. Sadly, such a charge is common among the anti-Calvinists, most of whom overlook their own implied allegiance to one Jakob Hermanszoon. Odd, that is.

AMR

Sorry to contradict you but by your words in discussing the issues are you a high Calvinist. No less.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What happens if the infant kept on doing right? At what point does the infant sin. What makes the infant sin?

There has been only one infant born that was not a sinner from birth and never sinned afterwards...ever.

AMR

 

[Nang]

There has been only one infant born that was not a sinner from birth and never sinned afterwards...ever.

AMR

That is why the word "all" in Romans 5:18, is quantified to be "many" in Romans 5:19.

Jesus Christ, born as a Child, is the only exception to universal depravity.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That is why the word "all" in Romans 5:18, is quantified to be "many" in Romans 5:19.

Jesus Christ, born as a Child, is the only exception to universal depravity.

Indeed. Note also the claim of many in that passage, in fact an amount no man can number, will be saved, contrary to the notion that "few" means a small amount that are entering into the straight gate.

AMR

 

[Nameless.In.Grace]

Rebuttal of the dreadful doctrine of reprobation

What happens if the infant kept on doing right? At what point does the infant sin. What makes the infant sin?

There has been only one infant born that was not a sinner from birth and never sinned afterwards...ever.

AMR

Thanks. Will take some time to respond fully to this and your other previous post.

I don't believe that anyone is actually born guilty of having committed a sin - rather, that we are all born tainted with the tendency to sin. Even Ps 51:5 allows for such an understanding. I am not aware of a scripture that explicitly says that we are born sinners.

TulipBee, AMR and Sonnet,

Who cares about Sin, until the age of Grace is closed, we all have Jesus's imputed perfection. Before I get crucified, allow me to add;

Sin is not our job, it's just our state. The Holy Spirit molds us and removes us from sin's clutches, though we remain forgiven sinners with Christ's imputed righteousness.

John 3:16 - 17 are in the context of John the Revelator, who describes Love as being the Seal of the Spirit response of mankind. The entire book of John, 1 John, 2nd John and 3rd John hammer this in. It is only the hard soil that won't allow the seed of the Spirit to grow into the fruits, that condemns the process of salvation! What is that hard soil but the heart that opposes unconditional Love?

Could it be along the lines of this?

Ecclesiastes 3:

11 He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also put eternity in their hearts, but man cannot discover the work God has done from beginning to end.

Ecclesiastes 8:17

hen I saw all the work of God, that man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun. However much man may toil in seeking, he will not find it out. Even though a wise man claims to know, he cannot find it out

Romans 1:19-20

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Matthew 11:27

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

In light of these in conjunction with Matthew 11:27;

John 3:17 takes on a new meaning.

John 3:17

17 For God did not send His Son into the world that He might condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

.......................... This brings new meaning to the contextual word world and Romans 1:20 uses the verbiage "without excuse" which rejects universal salvation imputed without freewill, but strongly suggests that the whole world was redeemed and provided connection to Jesus before birth.

Now, John the Revelator brings a concept home over and over concerning Love.

He continually states that Love surpasses Faith for salvation, by continually beating it in that Love defines God's people!

Could it be that there are many who never knew His name but followed His voice of Salvational Love in their temple that leads to the birth of the Spirit Fruits?

I can deliver if you don't believe me about John. He peppered his works with these odd references to Love.

For that matter, James and Paul's writings define this mystery in such repetition that it becomes dizzying.

Consider that Love is the Royal Commandment.

I can back this if you doubt it. But I am trying to avoid a book.

A solid example was Rahab and her Family, who is indeed in the lineage of our Risen Savior.

What of the Good Samaritan who represented a reprobate to the Jews, but sealed their salvation with their reflection of the unconditional Love of Jesus?

IDK, there's too much evidence to discount these anomalies that are a golden thread throughout all scripture.

Please challenge any of my points, I can write a book peppered with tons of scripture on these matters.

Jesus does imply that Love surpasses religion and James defines Love as Religion (or to get the horse placed correctly, Love is the Religion of God) coupled with the sacrifice of Christ which is imputed to all by the will of God and only rejected by the hardening of a heart to Love.

But, back to the focus on unconditional Love which Paul, John, the epistle of James and Jesus all imply can't be imparted without the guidance of the Spirit of our Good Shepherd:

How can one unconditionally Love without the Spirit?

According to the entire NT, no one can unconditionally Love without the Spirit..

John the Revelator agrees with me.

1 Jn. 4

6*We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

7*Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8*He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Paul seems to agree too.

1 Cor. 13:

For now we see indistinctly, as in a
mirror, but then face to face.
Now I know in part,
but then I will know fully,
as I am fully known.

13*Now these three remain:
faith, hope,*and love.
But the greatest of these is love.

One final example from modern times. Abraham Lincoln was a Diest, but he manifested traits of self sacrifice in the name of Unconditional Love towards humanity.

Jesus just told me to drop the microphone

http://i.makeagif.com/media/10-09-2015/X6fryj.gif

Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry to contradict you but by your words in discussing the issues are you a high Calvinist. No less.

Try studying more and posting less until you have your history well understood and be less embarrassing.

What is High Calvinism

Spoiler

A. The first generation of Reformed theologians were in basic agreement on the issues of Calvinism. These included Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli and others. Most of these men died within a few years of each other, and the leadership fell to their younger assistants.

B. This ‘Second Generation Calvinism began to expand on the doctrines of their predecessors. Scholars are divided whether they legitimately built on the foundation or not. In the areas where some of the ‘Second Generation Calvinists went where their predecessors had not and would not go, variations took place. Scholars often refer to the 2 main variations as ‘High’ and “Low* Calvinism.

C. The variations were on a variety of subjects, but they generally revolved around the questions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The first Calvinists rediscovered this balance, which had been lost for many years. Medieval theology was basically Semi-Pelagian and therefore laid greater stress on human responsibility. Calvinism simply reset the proper balance. But then the later Calvinists argued among themselves over the balance.

D. Basically the situation was this: the ‘High’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize divine sovereignty and the ‘Low’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize human responsibility. But this needs further clarification. For example, none of the ‘Lows’ taught a view of human responsibility as low as the Arminians or even the Lutherans.

E. Similarly, the differences between these two tendencies were minor when compared with their mutual agreement on doctrines where they disagreed with Romanism, Socinianism, Arminianism and Lutheranism. These were in-house debates. They were the ebbs and flows and tides in the River of Calvinism.

F. ‘High’ Calvinism was different from ‘Low’ Calvinism, however, in one important aspect: it went in a direction where no man had gone before. The Lows tended to move in the direction of Lutheranism, and so this was territory between two existing theologies. But the Highs went into brand new territory, for no theologian had so stressed divine sovereignty as to weaken human responsibility.

G. One other point merits mention. The proper balance of sovereignty and responsibility is not that Calvinism has the right view of sovereignty and Arminianism has the right view of human responsibility. Even the lowest of the lows did not suggest that. However, many of the Highs thought that the Lows were semi-Arminian. Epithets of ‘Pseudo-Calvinist!’ were hurled. The debates were primarily theological; but theologians being human, personality conflicts often entered the arena.

H. In a related way, this typifies all controversies. The Highs came first. The Lows arose as a reaction against them, calling for a return to the original balance. Then the Highs reacted against the Lows and some of them went even higher. And naturally some of the Lows reacted against that and went even lower. It became a chain of over-reactions. Many of the following chapters show how these later reactions went far beyond not only the original Calvinists, but even the original Highs and Lows.

I. This analysis is important to the correct understanding of the development of Reformed theology. We have often pointed out that though there is a common unifying thread among all Calvinists, there are many varieties and sub-varieties. These did not all arise at once. Most arose as reactions’ and counter-reactions and over-reactions against previous varieties. The major ones can be charted like this:

Hyper-Calvinism	High Calvinism
Calvinistic Antinomianism	High Calvinism
Supralapsarianism	High Calvinism
Strict 5-Point Calvinism	High Calvinism
Moderate Calvinism	Mainstream Calvinism
Amyraldism	Low Calvinism
Neonomianism	Low Calvinism
4-Point Calvinism	Low Calvinism
Late New England Calvinism	Low Calvinism

J. The question that was often asked in determining in which direction one was moving was this: “Which is more important to maintain, the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of Man?” This was related to other questions: “Which is more important, the secret will of God or the revealed will of God?” “Which is the more fundamental attribute of God, sovereignty or holiness [or love]?” All Calvinists today should ask themselves these questions.

K. They are trick questions. In a way, they are unfair. The proper answer should be that both are equal. Divine sovereignty is an attribute of God, but no attribute takes precedence over another or else there is an imbalance in the Godhead. Human responsibility is based on the revealed will of God, which in turn is based on the holiness of God. Just as true beauty consists in giving proper balance, so true theology (and Calvinism in particular) consists in giving the proper balance to its doctrines and their ramifications. The further above or below Mainstream Calvinism one gets, then, the more imbalanced he is on the doctrines in question...

Src: Daniel, Curt, The History and Theology of Calvinism

In the table above you will find me comfortably in the Mainstream Calvinism realm.

AMR

 

[TulipBee]

No one is innocent! We're cursed because of Adam's sin!

 

[Crucible]

The general Reformed belief is that God draws the person rather than the person drawing God. Or, God 'defuses' you from wickedness rather than you 'infusing' yourself to God.

This is exactly the difference between the Reformed tradition and the Catholic tradition- there is 'imputed righteousness' and there is 'infusion'.

Predestination is something the Reformists held to because that is what they saw the Scriptures taught- as opposed to errant tradition. Because 'free will' is enticing to self righteous minds, a self righteous society will inch it's way back to it, and that's what happened after the Reformation.

Christian reform has happened many times through history, and typically because people lost sight or fell too far into heresy. The reason the Protestant Reformation stands out is because, unlike how a normal schism goes, it was a creation of an entirely new dogmatic church.

 

[Cross Reference]

LOL!! Chapter and verse, please.

 

[Cross Reference]

Try studying more and posting less until you have your history well understood and be less embarrassing.

What is High Calvinism

Spoiler

A. The first generation of Reformed theologians were in basic agreement on the issues of Calvinism. These included Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Vermigli and others. Most of these men died within a few years of each other, and the leadership fell to their younger assistants.

B. This ‘Second Generation Calvinism began to expand on the doctrines of their predecessors. Scholars are divided whether they legitimately built on the foundation or not. In the areas where some of the ‘Second Generation Calvinists went where their predecessors had not and would not go, variations took place. Scholars often refer to the 2 main variations as ‘High’ and “Low* Calvinism.

C. The variations were on a variety of subjects, but they generally revolved around the questions of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The first Calvinists rediscovered this balance, which had been lost for many years. Medieval theology was basically Semi-Pelagian and therefore laid greater stress on human responsibility. Calvinism simply reset the proper balance. But then the later Calvinists argued among themselves over the balance.

D. Basically the situation was this: the ‘High’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize divine sovereignty and the ‘Low’ Calvinists tended to over-emphasize human responsibility. But this needs further clarification. For example, none of the ‘Lows’ taught a view of human responsibility as low as the Arminians or even the Lutherans.

E. Similarly, the differences between these two tendencies were minor when compared with their mutual agreement on doctrines where they disagreed with Romanism, Socinianism, Arminianism and Lutheranism. These were in-house debates. They were the ebbs and flows and tides in the River of Calvinism.

F. ‘High’ Calvinism was different from ‘Low’ Calvinism, however, in one important aspect: it went in a direction where no man had gone before. The Lows tended to move in the direction of Lutheranism, and so this was territory between two existing theologies. But the Highs went into brand new territory, for no theologian had so stressed divine sovereignty as to weaken human responsibility.

G. One other point merits mention. The proper balance of sovereignty and responsibility is not that Calvinism has the right view of sovereignty and Arminianism has the right view of human responsibility. Even the lowest of the lows did not suggest that. However, many of the Highs thought that the Lows were semi-Arminian. Epithets of ‘Pseudo-Calvinist!’ were hurled. The debates were primarily theological; but theologians being human, personality conflicts often entered the arena.

H. In a related way, this typifies all controversies. The Highs came first. The Lows arose as a reaction against them, calling for a return to the original balance. Then the Highs reacted against the Lows and some of them went even higher. And naturally some of the Lows reacted against that and went even lower. It became a chain of over-reactions. Many of the following chapters show how these later reactions went far beyond not only the original Calvinists, but even the original Highs and Lows.

I. This analysis is important to the correct understanding of the development of Reformed theology. We have often pointed out that though there is a common unifying thread among all Calvinists, there are many varieties and sub-varieties. These did not all arise at once. Most arose as reactions’ and counter-reactions and over-reactions against previous varieties. The major ones can be charted like this:

Hyper-Calvinism	High Calvinism
Calvinistic Antinomianism	High Calvinism
Supralapsarianism	High Calvinism
Strict 5-Point Calvinism	High Calvinism
Moderate Calvinism	Mainstream Calvinism
Amyraldism	Low Calvinism
Neonomianism	Low Calvinism
4-Point Calvinism	Low Calvinism
Late New England Calvinism	Low Calvinism

J. The question that was often asked in determining in which direction one was moving was this: “Which is more important to maintain, the sovereignty of God or the responsibility of Man?” This was related to other questions: “Which is more important, the secret will of God or the revealed will of God?” “Which is the more fundamental attribute of God, sovereignty or holiness [or love]?” All Calvinists today should ask themselves these questions.

K. They are trick questions. In a way, they are unfair. The proper answer should be that both are equal. Divine sovereignty is an attribute of God, but no attribute takes precedence over another or else there is an imbalance in the Godhead. Human responsibility is based on the revealed will of God, which in turn is based on the holiness of God. Just as true beauty consists in giving proper balance, so true theology (and Calvinism in particular) consists in giving the proper balance to its doctrines and their ramifications. The further above or below Mainstream Calvinism one gets, then, the more imbalanced he is on the doctrines in question...

Src: Daniel, Curt, The History and Theology of Calvinism

In the table above you will find me comfortably in the Mainstream Calvinism realm.

AMR

Embarrassing to who, you? That's tough. It's tough on everyone else who knows the truth in keeping up with your untruths. . . .also laughable when reading how you try to support your bent.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

No one is innocent! We're cursed because of Adam's sin!

Sadly, it is increasingly common for not a few, for the sake of "free will", are more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. It was Pelagius who was incensed at the idea that God's grace was necessary for the things He commands. It is always remarkable (and sad) to see how mainstream Pelagian thinking has become. Many Evangelicals today who have a problem with Calvinism would actually think that Arminius was too "Calvinistic". Dave Hunt pretty much wrote the same thing (i.e., God would never command something we cannot do) in a book he wrote in debate with James White. The Biblical fact of the matter is that Romans 7-8 makes exactly the point that the law is powerless to produce in the flesh what it commands, hence the necessity that Christ would come to defeat the enslaving power of sin.

From the account of the Fall in Genesis 2 and 3, three factors emerge that explain the fall of Adam:

1. Adam was earthly. While Adam was created upright, he naturally desired earthly things. Man’s earthly nature is described clearly in Genesis 2. Man is from the earth, tills the earth, is fed from the earth, is united in earthy marriage, etc. Thus, while Adam was created upright, he still desired earthly things.

2. Adam was on probation. God’s special test of Adam, in his condition of earthly uprightness, was for Adam to confirm that he was upright in matters pertaining to God. To do so, Adam needed to demonstrate rejection of his natural desires for earthly things. In Genesis 2:16-17, we find God’s command prohibiting Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This tree contained all the appeal of the other trees in the Garden and was itself morally indifferent. So the only reason Adam was to abstain from eating of this tree was because God commanded it.

3. Adam was tempted. In Genesis 3, an external element, the Serpent, becomes a factor in the Fall. By means of the Serpent’s clever speech, Adam and Eve are introduced to thinking differently about God’s creation.

These three aspects are more than sufficient to give an account of the fall of man. Man’s desire to eat of the tree was a natural desire of his earthliness, the command to not do so from God was given for no other reason than obedience to Him, and the Serpent’s temptation provided an opportunity for man eschew God’s perspective and to think differently about the tree. There is no mystery here that requires philosophical supporting arguments to explain the Fall. Instead we have God’s own words declaring a sufficient explanation.

A good read:
http://www.amazon.com/Imputation-Adams-Sin-John-Murray/dp/0875523412

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

LOL!! Chapter and verse, please.

Asked and answered:

The teachings of Scripture are absolutely and unmistakably clear about the fundamental aspects of our salvation:

(1) sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Romans 8:7-8);
(2) God is sovereign in the exercise of His saving will (Ephesians 1:4-5);
(3) Jesus Christ's substitutionary death on behalf of His people bore the full weight of God's wrath on behalf of His people, and Jesus Christ's atoning work alone is efficacious for the salvation of His people (Isaiah 53:5);
(4) the saving purpose of God cannot be thwarted (John 6:37), thus none of Jesus Christ's true sheep will ever be lost (John 10:27-29), because
(5) the perseverance of Jesus Christ's elect are assured by God (Jude 24; Philemon 1:6; 1 Peter 1:5).

TOTAL DEPRAVITY (Radical Corruption) - "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?? (Jer 17:9)
Man has a will and his will is in bondage to his nature. The will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature, but it is not free to contradict his nature. From Adam's fall the nature of every man has been sinful. Therefore, every action of the unsaved man is sinful and rebellious; it is stained through and through by his sin nature. The unregenerate man cannot perform even one single righteous or pleasing work with respect to a holy God, for their actions are wrongly motivated, that is, not for the glory of God, and are but filthy rags in the eyes of God.

See: Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:19, Genesis 8:21, Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 22:29, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Psalm 130:3, Psalm 143:2, Proverbs 20:9, Job 14:4, Job 15:14-16, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Ecclesiastes 7:29, Ecclesiastes 9:3, Isaiah 53:6, Isaiah 64:6-7, Jeremiah 13:23, Jeremiah 17:9, 2 Chronicles 6:36, John 3:3, John 3:19, John 6:44, John 6:65, John 8:44, Romans 3:9-18, Romans 5:12, Romans 5:18-19, Romans 6:20, Romans 7:18, Romans 7:23-24, Romans 8:7-8, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Ephesians 2:1-3, Ephesians 4:18, 2 Timothy 2:26-26, 1 John 3:4, 1 John 3:10, 1 John 5:19, Titus 3:3

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (Sovereign Election) – “... though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls..” (Rom 9:11)
God’s election is truly unconditional. The foreknowledge of God is based upon His decree, plan, and purpose; it is the expression of His will and good pleasure, not a response to man's free-will choices. Election is the sovereign act of God the Father choosing specific individuals out from the entire body of condemned and fallen humanity. These individuals were chosen before the foundations of the universe and not as a result of any foreseen merit or activity or decision on their part. These chosen or elect individuals are purposed to become monuments to the Father's love for all of eternity. In this regard it is understood election is an example of God’s "love before time."

See: Deuteronomy 7:6-8, Deuteronomy 10:14-15, Lamentations 5:21, Isaiah 55:11, Amos 3:2, Jeremiah 1:5, Matthew 7:23, Matthew 24:22-24, Matthew 24:31, Luke 12:6-7, John 6:37-39, John 6:44, John 6:65, John 15:16, John 17:19, Acts 2:23, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 17:26, Acts 18:27, Romans 8:28-39, Romans 9:11-16, Romans 11:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, 1 Corinthians 8:3, Ephesians 1:1-14, Ephesians 2:4-10, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5, 1 Thessalonians 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Philippians 1:29, Philippians 2:12-13, 1 Timothy 5:21, 2 Timothy 1:9-10, 2 Timothy 2:19, 2 Timothy 2:25, 1 Peter 1:1-2, 1 Peter 1:4-5, 1 Peter 1:20, 2 Peter 1:5-11

LIMITED ATONEMENT (Particular Redemption) - "...you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." (Matt 1:21)
In order to accomplish the specific will of the Father, Christ took to the Cross the sins of the elect. Christ died for the sins of men without distinction as to race or nationality (that is, Jew or Gentile) that no man can number. He provided a complete and effectual atonement for their sins. Those whom Christ redeemed, Christ really and truly redeemed (actual not potential). Though infinite in value, Christ's atoning work was specific in its design. Some prefer to call this "definite atonement" or "particular redemption". The death of Christ at Calvary does not make men savable, but rather it saves men completely. The Cross is a completed, successful work that requires no assistance from man. Christ died for all of the sins of the elect. Other views of the scope of the atonement must avoid the idea of all the sins lest these views proclaim a universal salvation. For, if Christ died for all of the sins of all men without exception, upon what basis would any man be denied heaven? Remember, unbelief is a sin and therefore a sin for which Christ died if He has truly died for all the sins of all men without exception.

See: Psalm 34:22, Isaiah 53:8, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 20:28, Matthew 26:28, Luke 1:68, Luke 2:1-2, Luke 19:10, John 3:16 (the Father gave His Son for whom? - according to this verse the Son was given for whoever believes in Him (the believing ones) not for the ones not believing in Him), John 5:13, John 6:35-40, John 10:11, John 10:14 -18, John 10:24-29, John 12:32, John 17:1-11, John 17:20, John 17:24-26, Acts 20:28, Romans 5:8-10, Romans 5:18, Romans 8:32-34, Galatians 3:13, Ephesians 1:3-4, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:15-16, Ephesians 5:25-27, Hebrews 2:9, Hebrews 2:17, Hebrews 3:1, Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:14, Colossians 1:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, 1 Timothy 1:15, 2 Timothy 2:4-6, 2 Peter 3:9, 1 John 2:1-2, 1 John 4:14, Titus 2:14, Revelation 5:9.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE (Effectual Election) - "...those whom he called he also justified?" (Rom 8:30)
The Holy Spirit, in agreement with the electing will of the Father and the atoning work of the Son, does in the fullness of time quicken the dead spirit of a man and give to him the gift of saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The logical order of salvation is regeneration first, followed by faith/believing. Since dead men do not respond, God must make them alive first (Eph 2:4-5); regeneration, of necessity, precedes any action or activity on the part of man, including faith and repentance. Hence, every single individual upon whom the Spirit of God moves savingly is regenerated, born again, adopted, grafted in, and saved eternally. This saving grace is not coercion. Rather, by transforming the heart, this grace makes the believer wholly willing to trust and obey.

See: Deuteronomy 30:6, Isaiah 55:7, Ezekiel 11:19-20, Ezekiel 18:23, Ezekiel 36:26-27, John 1:12-13 but of God, John 1:12-13, John 3:3-8, John 5:21, John 5:24 - the perfect tense verb reads has already passed from death unto life, John 6:37-39, John 6:38, John 10:16, John 11:14-15, John 11:25, John 11:38-44 , John 17:2, Acts 2:38, Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, Acts 13:48, Acts 16:14, Acts 17:30, Acts 18:27, Romans 8:8, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 8:32, Romans 9:16, Galatians 6:15, Ephesians 1:3, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 1:13, Ephesians 2:1-10, Philippians 1:29, Philippians 2:12-13, 1 Corinthians 4:7, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 1 Corinthians 12:3, 2 Corinthians 3:6, 2 Corinthians 3:17, 2 Corinthians 5:17-18, Colossians 2:13, James 1:18, 2 Timothy 2:25, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 1:2-3, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 John 5:1 - a perfect tense verb used here and reads has already been born of God, 1 John 3:7, 1 John 5:4.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS (The Preservation of The Saints) - "...those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:30)
Since God is the Author and Finisher of our faith, man cannot fall away from eternal salvation. Once a man has been born-again he cannot be unborn-again. Furthermore, the elect of God will definitely manifest evidences of their salvation by means of good works. The elect shall, by the grace of God and without exception, ultimately persevere in righteousness. The eternal security of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ is demonstrated by the persevering faith and righteousness wrought by the grace of God in His little begotten ones.

See: Isaiah 43:1-3, Jeremiah 32:40, John 3:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 6:35-40, John 6:47, John 6:51, John 10:27-30, John 11:25, John 14:21, John 15:1-11, John 17:12, John 17:15, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 8:35-39, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 2:10 God's workmanship, Ephesians 4:30, Hebrews 5:11-6:12, Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12-13, Philippians 3:12-15, 1 Corinthians 1:8 , 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, 2 Timothy 1:12, 2 Timothy 4:18, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Peter 5:10, 2 Peter 2:10, 1 John 2:19, 1 John 2:25, 1 John 3:9, 1 John 5:13, 1 John 5:18, Jude 24-25.

Now that you have what you have asked for, we await your exposition of them in support of your peculiar views.

AMR

 

[God's Truth]

Anyone who preaches anything against obeying...anything...like we cannot obey, or we cannot obey until when...etc...those people have let themselves be deceived into false doctrines.

Sense that is common will tell you that anything against obedience is evil.

 

[God's Truth]

GT,

You believe in faith.

What comes first?

Faith or obedience?

Last question,

Who is responsible for that obedience occurring?


Sent from my iPad using TOL ~Jesus is the Theology and the Counselor is the Commentary

You can have faith with obedience, or faith without obedience.

If a person obeys, they will come to believe the truth, see John 7:17.

If a person has faith without obedience, he has dead faith and cannot be saved.

God does not save people before they believe and obey.

Jesus says he saves those who believe and obey.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

 

[TulipBee]

You can have faith with obedience, or faith without obedience.

If a person obeys, they will come to believe the truth, see John 7:17.

If a person has faith without obedience, he has dead faith and cannot be saved.

God does not save people before they believe and obey.

Jesus says he saves those who believe and obey.

Why don't you believe Jesus?

 

[Cross Reference]

Asked and answered:

The teachings of Scripture are absolutely and unmistakably clear about the fundamental aspects of our salvation:

(1) sinners are utterly helpless to redeem themselves or to contribute anything meritorious toward their own salvation (Romans 8:7-8);

AMR

'nough! Redemption is NOT about salvation. It is about redemption. An item in a pawn shop doesn't need to be saved but redeemed. Jesus merely set the captives free, remember, they belonged to Him! What captives, you ask? The righteous, justified captives held by the grave. He made peace with God in their behalf and any other living being who places their heart, soul, mind, and strength in Him, this side of the grave. Unto what you might also ask? Unto this: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." John 17:3 (KJV), made possible by His indwelling life made possible by His resurrection.

Having said that, redemption is the enablement/foundation, with its own covenant, for the living by which salvation unto something in God set in Himself, is made possible. I.e., sonship in the Father; heirs of Him and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. A vast family of them for which man was created for to become. That makes the Christian from Pentecost forward to this day a very special people, most of whom are ignorant of their heritage, most now willfully so because of Calvin.

I am NOT a dispensationalist, however, Paul had it right concerning this period of time when he wrote: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it [redemption; the death of Jesus Christ] is the power of God [but only] unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek Romans 1:16 (KJV) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily." Colossians 1:25-29 (KJV)

Can you now not agree with that?

 

[Cross Reference]

Sadly, it is increasingly common for not a few, for the sake of "free will", are more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. It was Pelagius who was incensed at the idea that God's grace was necessary for the things He commands. It is always remarkable (and sad) to see how mainstream Pelagian thinking has become. Many Evangelicals today who have a problem with Calvinism would actually think that Arminius was too "Calvinistic". Dave Hunt pretty much wrote the same thing (i.e., God would never command something we cannot do) in a book he wrote in debate with James White. The Biblical fact of the matter is that Romans 7-8 makes exactly the point that the law is powerless to produce in the flesh what it commands, hence the necessity that Christ would come to defeat the enslaving power of sin.

From the account of the Fall in Genesis 2 and 3, three factors emerge that explain the fall of Adam:

1. Adam was earthly. While Adam was created upright, he naturally desired earthly things. Man’s earthly nature is described clearly in Genesis 2. Man is from the earth, tills the earth, is fed from the earth, is united in earthy marriage, etc. Thus, while Adam was created upright, he still desired earthly things.

2. Adam was on probation. God’s special test of Adam, in his condition of earthly uprightness, was for Adam to confirm that he was upright in matters pertaining to God. To do so, Adam needed to demonstrate rejection of his natural desires for earthly things. In Genesis 2:16-17, we find God’s command prohibiting Adam from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This tree contained all the appeal of the other trees in the Garden and was itself morally indifferent. So the only reason Adam was to abstain from eating of this tree was because God commanded it.

3. Adam was tempted. In Genesis 3, an external element, the Serpent, becomes a factor in the Fall. By means of the Serpent’s clever speech, Adam and Eve are introduced to thinking differently about God’s creation.

These three aspects are more than sufficient to give an account of the fall of man. Man’s desire to eat of the tree was a natural desire of his earthliness, the command to not do so from God was given for no other reason than obedience to Him, and the Serpent’s temptation provided an opportunity for man eschew God’s perspective and to think differently about the tree. There is no mystery here that requires philosophical supporting arguments to explain the Fall. Instead we have God’s own words declaring a sufficient explanation.

A good read:
http://www.amazon.com/Imputation-Adams-Sin-John-Murray/dp/0875523412

AMR

Everything you say of Adam, apply it to Jesus, the second Adam, as well.