Regeneration: When Does New Life Begin?

Regeneration: When Does New Life Begin?

by Ron F. Hale

(Reblogged from SBC Today)

Viewpoints on the doctrine of regeneration collide and clash in the evangelical blogosphere. Is the sinner regenerated prior to faith or subsequently? It boils down to the question of “when?”

Reformed theologian Dr. R.C. Sproul shares his personal experience: “One of the most dramatic moments in my life for the shaping of my theology took place in a seminary classroom. One of my professors went to the blackboard and wrote these words in bold letters: ‘Regeneration Precedes Faith.’”[1]

With polarizing gravitas, Sproul declares, “If we believe that faith precedes regeneration, then we set our thinking and therefore ourselves in direct opposition not only to giants of Christian history but also to the teaching of Paul and of our Lord Himself.”[2]

In stark contrast, my dramatic moment came a decade ago when realizing that many New Calvinists in the SBC teach that a sinner is regenerated or “born-again” in order to believe. To say it another way, the sinner believes because he or she has been born-again (regenerated).

All of my SBC teaching and training had taught me that the regenerating work of God happens “as” or “after” a sinner (under conviction by the Holy Spirit) responds to the Gospel through repentance and faith. In other words, the sinner believes in Jesus and eternal life is imparted by the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. The person becomes a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17), and partakes of a new nature (2 Pet. 1:4).

Consequently, if you believe a sinner is dead as a corpse (totally depraved and unable to freely respond to God) and faith is a gift given to particular ones (the elect), and only those individuals sovereignly and unconditionally elected before the foundation of the world will be irresistibly drawn to Christ – then it is highly likely you believe that regeneration precedes faith.

Dr. Kendell Easley wrote a book entitled 52 Words Every Christian Should Know (2006). Easley sides with Sproul on the matter of regeneration preceding faith. He defines the word in this manner:

Regeneration or being born again refers to God’s act of making a person alive spiritually. This is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit by which sinners are given new spiritual life enabling them to relate to God in faith, love, obedience, and delight.”[3]

Easley makes his position clearer as he says, “Is faith the basis upon which the Spirit regenerates or is faith the fruit of regeneration? The biblical language, emphasizing regeneration as moving from death to life as sovereignly worked by the Spirit, appears to favor the later view and understands faith itself as a gift from God.[4] John Frame would agree with Sproul and Easley as he states, “The Spirit regenerates us, producing faith.”[5]

Conversely, Dr. Kenneth Keathley, senior associate dean at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, makes the case for faith preceding the new birth (regeneration) and lays out three strong biblical arguments, they are:

First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Pet. 1:23; James 1:18,21; I John 3:9). That the Word of God is the Spirit’s instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration.[6]

Second, the Bible presents conversion as the condition to salvation, not the result of being saved (John 1:12; 3:16,18,24,36,40; Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:22, 26; 4:3,5; 5:1). The apostles repeatedly promise their hearers that, if they will repent and believe, then they will be saved (Acts 2:38; 16:30-31). The Apostle John put special emphasis on the necessity of the new birth, but he presented faith as the condition to becoming a child of God (John 1:12-13) and to receiving eternal life (“By believing you may have life in his name,” John 20:31).[7]

Third, Keathley uses a point made by Dr. Norman Geisler … that if regeneration is prior to conversion, then salvation is no longer by faith. If one is already regenerated before he believes, then faith is not a condition to salvation but the evidence of having been saved. However, sola fide is the testimony of Scripture (Rom. 10:9-10).[8]

Geisler’s point is well taken – a “born again unbeliever” is difficult to imagine even if the time span is infinitesimally small. Charles C. Ryrie has asked, “… for it may as well be argued that if a sinner has new life through regeneration, why does he need to believe?”[9]

Dr. Gary L. Nebeker questions the view of faith being given as a gift to some: “The concept of infused faith for salvation bears a marked resemblance to the sacramentalism of the Roman Catholic Church. That is to say, faith becomes a transmitted and efficacious element, which God gives to men for salvation. Again, it must be emphasized that faith is not a substance, but a human response prompted by the Holy Spirit.”[10]

Could it be that Reformed divines fought so hard in guarding Church orthodoxy against pelagianism (and semi-pelagianism)[11] and for salvation being purely and solely of God that they missed the living reality that God looks for a free and loving response of faith as the Holy Spirit draws the sinner through the Gospel?

In Luke 7, the “sinful” woman drenches the feet of Jesus with her tears, dries them with her hair, and anoints His feet with expensive perfume. Meanwhile, the Pharisee is nauseated by this nonsense. Finally, Jesus says to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” How? Why? When? What for?

Jesus said to her, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

The Bible is null and void of teaching that saving faith is a special gift of God to a privileged and particular few. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (to whosoever), and as the sinner hears the Word of Truth, he or she is born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God (I Pet. 1:23).

©Ron F. Hale, January 5, 2014

[1] http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/sproul01.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kendell Easley, 52 Words Every Christian Should Know, (Nashville, Holman Reference, 2006), 86.
[4] Ibid. 87.
[5] http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/12/an_interview_with_john_frame_b_1.php
[6] Kenneth Keathley, “The Work of God: Salvation,” in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B & H Academic, 2007), 743. Also, Dr. Keathley believes that conversion is made up of two distinguishable yet inseparable parts: repentance and faith, 728.
[7] Ibid. 743.
[8] Ibid.743.
[9] Basic Theology, (Wheaton: Victor, 1986; reprint ,Chicago: Moody, 1999), 326.
[10] http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y1989/89july1.html
[11] http://baptisttheologians.blogspot.com/2012/06/semi-pelagianism-plea-for-clarity-and.html

270 thoughts on “Regeneration: When Does New Life Begin?

  1. Very good article Ron Hale!

    Like John 1:4-13 teaches the order of light then faith then birth, Jesus clearly taught the same thing in 12:35-36 …So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you. The one who walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. brianwagner writes, “Jesus clearly taught the same thing in 12:35-36 …So Jesus said to them, “The light is among you for a little while longer….”

      Jesus makes this comment in response to the multitude who didn’t seem to grasp His teaching about His death. Immediately following, we read, “…though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him;…” So, do you see Jesus referring to Himself as the “light.” Thus, consistent with John 9, “While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” If so, isn’t this a different context than that which you advocate in John 1 (negating your statement, “Jesus clearly taught the same thing in 12:35-36”?

      Like

  2. Regeration is the PROCESS by which God, the Holy Spirit, uses the Gospel to draw Christ’s sheep to Him, gives them the faith to believe in their Shepherd/Savior and culminates in an outward conversion. Conversion is the apparent evidence of a true saving faith that perseveres eternally.
    We have absolutely no idea how long this regenerative process lasts since it’s a spiritual work that only God Himself wroughts. But what’s clear is that faith is a fruit of God’s act of giving us a new heart and conversion is an outworking of this supernatural faith.
    Also, God has written the Bible in such a manner as to allow men to believe a lie. He has written the Bible in such a way that requires the HARMONIZATION of His Word. Those who are attempting to utilize Holy Writ to prove their own ideology, God has written His Word in such a way as to seal them in their false ideology. But Christ’s sheep hear His voice and His voice leads to regeneration and eternal life.
    But in order for regeneration to occur, the HS must apply the Gospel to the hearts of the reprobate because, otherwise, the Gospel is “foolishness to those who are perishing” and they will NEVER believe unto salvation.

    Like

  3. What sayeth the Institutes?

    “Having been regenerated (made alive together with Christ), Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

    Only the Bible doesn’t read that way.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Question for you Phillip..Romans 10:17 says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”
      ‭‭Question: Is the “hearing” in this verse referring to physical or spiritual “hearing”? If it’s referring to physical hearing, then how do the deaf become saved? If it refers to spiritual hearing, then faith is a CONSEQUENCE and NOT a CAUSE!
      This is why Jesus repeats “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” He’s not referring to physical ears (hearing), but spiritual ears (hearing). We know, from harmonizing Scripture, that only true believers have “ears to hear”.
      All this is to say that faith is the result/consequence/fruit of a supernatural understanding of the Gospel message; for only those who have “ears to hear” can understand an otherwise “foolish” message!
      ‭‭

      Like

    2. phillip writes, ““Having been regenerated (made alive together with Christ), Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
      Only the Bible doesn’t read that way.”

      If we incorporate Romans 8, we get, “…the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; because Abraham was in the flesh he could not please God, but Abraham believed God anyway and it was credited to him as righteousness.” This makes no sense at all. Yet, this is what you would seem to have the Bible to say if not Troy’s version of events.

      Following Ephesians 2, could we have, “even when Abraham was dead in his transgressions, God made Abraham alive and then Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

      Following Colossians 2, we could have, “Abraham was dead in his transgressions and the uncircumcision of his flesh, God made Abraham alive, having forgiven Abraham all his transgressions, and then Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

      What do you have the Bible saying about Abraham’s condition before he believed God?

      Then, when it says that Abraham believed God, do you think Abraham first believed God and then acted in faith or did Abraham first act in faith and then believe God? Romans 4 has, “…to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,…” This seems to say that it is the one who believes whose faith is credited as righteousness.

      Like

  4. My question digesting the debate with theology student Matt Slick and autodidact Jesse…When does regeneration happen in Theology class. When you submit to Calvinism the first semester or a later year ? Is submission of intellect really the same as regeneration ? What percentage of DD reform submitters are regenerate ? we won’t know of course this side of the grave. seems a safe bet it there will be some slippage.

    Like

  5. Mark: 10 17-27 (the rich young ruler)
    There came one running, kneeled and asked Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
    Jesus said unto him…you know the commandments, Do not commit adultery, kill, steal, bear false witness, Defraud, and honor father and mother.

    But the young man answered: Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

    Jesus beholding him loved him, and said: One thing thou lack – go sell all you have, give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: then come, take up the cross, and follow me.

    But the young man went away grieved for he had great possessions.

    And Jesus declared: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————————
    If the rich young ruler had asked this question of a Calvinist, he would not have been given Jesus’ answer.

    Conclusion: Either Jesus’ answer is lacking in truth, or the Calvinist answer is lacking in truth.
    As for me and my house, we will follow Jesus’s answer. :-]

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Jesus loved him, even though he rejected Jesus’ call to follow! How beautiful! It spurs me to try to love those who reject the truth we call them to on this blog! 🙂

      Like

      1. God loves His creation; just not in a salvific sense. Also, who’s to say that he didn’t EVENTUALLY become saved?

        Like

      1. The Calvinist answer is twofold:
        1) If god in eternity past decrees it then you can’t resist it.
        2) If god in eternity past doesn’t decree it, then go has made you “LOT” not to have it, and you will be punished for that!

        Like

  6. Brothers Troy/Rhutchin,

    I’ll address you both.

    Romans 8:8, Ephesians 2:4-5, and Colossians 2:13-14, have all been biblically, and exegetically, explained in context by many commenters on this site so I see no reason to regurgitate it again here.

    Ironically, you both, in your own way, are prime examples of what occurred with the majority of Israel. All the verses above have been explained to you biblically, exegetically, and in context. You have been shown over and over that regeneration does NOT precede faith. Did you accept our words? No! Why not? Did God prevent you from understanding the light given? No! But just like most of the Israelites, you hardened your own hearts (at least so far). There are even some Calvinists that reject this teaching!

    What do you both think the difference is between you (Troy/Rhutchin) and Leighton/FromOverHere? They were both Calvinists and yet they were (guess what?) “willing” to accept another possible interpretation.

    You both could do the same. But you have to be willing.

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well said Phillip! –
      You enunciated it right out of scriptures perspective and followed the language model of scripture!!!!

      This topic is highlighting the contrast between the language of scripture and the language of Calvinism.
      And language is the outward expression/manifestation of human thought.

      Like

      1. Ok brother br.d I’ll give you same questions I gave Phillip which requires an understanding of language..
        Question: Does “hearing” refer to physical or spiritual hearing? If it’s speaking of physical hearing, then how can the deaf exercise faith unto salvation. If it’s spiritual hearing, then faith is a fruit of spiritual hearing/understanding and we know from other scriptures that natural man (unsaved man) can’t have spiritual hearing (1 Cor. 2:14).
        So we can paraphrase Romans 10:17 to say, “So [saving] faith comes from [spiritual] hearing, and [spiritual] hearing by the word of Christ.” Salvation is of the Lord!

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Hi Troy,
        On 1 Cor. 2:14 we have the words ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος “the faculty of anthropos” and from the context of the whole verse, I would read that as “the natural faculty of man WITHOUT ANY INPUT FROM THE SPIRIT”.
        1) No orthodox Christian would argue that man by natural faculties WITHOUT THE SPIRIT can comprehend the things of the spirit.
        2) If you are suggesting that the influence of the Holy Spirit “MUST” be that of regeneration, in order for a person to receive communication from the Holy Spirit, you are going beyond what this text says, imposing a philosophical supposition on it.

        And on Romans 10:17 we basically have the same underlying understanding.

        Your view is founded on the presupposition that the process of regeneration “MUST” precede the process of communication.
        In other words, if god speaks to an unregenerate person, that person cannot understand what God is saying.
        If that is true then you have massive accounts in the scripture in which Jesus is speaking to someone who doesn’t understand what he is saying, but where Jesus treats that person AS-IF he does understand what Jesus is saying.

        Take the roman solder whose son Jesus healed for example. Does the text say that god had to regenerate that solder before he could understand the words Jesus spoke to him in order to understand his son was healed?

        People can find verses in the bible to affirm just about anything.
        Can you find any specific verses that specifically state that God must regenerate a person before he can communicate to that person?

        Like

      1. You write… “If it’s spiritual hearing, then faith is a fruit of spiritual hearing/understanding and we know from other scriptures that natural man (unsaved man) can’t have spiritual hearing (1 Cor. 2:14).”

        And there you go again. 1 Corinthians 2:14 has also been biblically, and exegetically, explained in context and yet you continue to reject our words. Why?

        Mark 12:32-34 (NKJV)…..
        So the scribe said to Him, “Well said, Teacher. You have spoken the truth, for there is one God, and there is no other but He. And to love Him with all the heart, with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”

        Oops. So much for the unregenerate not being able to understand “spiritual” things. And the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14).

        He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. phillip writes, “Oops. So much for the unregenerate not being able to understand “spiritual” things. And the law is spiritual (Romans 7:14).”

        Let’s not forget the two problems Paul identified with the Jew–

        1. “…I bear [the Jews] witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God.”

        2. “…Jews ask for signs,…but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block,…” (1 Corinthians 1)

        So, Jesus is correct – the Jews understand the Scriptures as they relate to God (even the atheists understand these things) but for them to bend the knee to Christ will require God’s grace. No one is far from the kingdom of God and Jesus spoke to this in John 3 where He explained that the Holy Spirit must get involved for one to enter the kingdom of God.

        Like

      3. I find it hilarious that a Calvinist will say “Amen” when another Calvinist says “X is true”
        But when a non Calvinist says “X is true” that same Calvinist will argue “X is false”

        Calvinists taking themselves so seriously is good entertainment!! 😀

        Like

      4. Phillip did you really just attempt to compare the context of Mark 12 to that of 1 Cor 2?? Come on brother!! You have to know better than that!! You can’t equate Jesus’ conversation with a Jewish Rabbi to the context of 1 Cor 2. Understanding the law doesn’t fulfill the teaching of 1 Cor 2:14. Having mere knowledge of the Bible is not enough for salvation. Remember even the demons know what that Jewish teacher knew. The spiritual understanding is supernatural in 1 Cor 2.

        Like

    2. phillip writes, “Romans 8:8, Ephesians 2:4-5, and Colossians 2:13-14, have all been biblically, and exegetically, explained in context by many commenters on this site so I see no reason to regurgitate it again here.”

      We want to know the position you take (it’s all right to agree with other commenters). How do you see the order here: being made alive followed by believing or believing followed by being made alive.

      Then, ” You have been shown over and over that regeneration does NOT precede faith. Did you accept our words?”

      I don’t think this has actually been done. A lot of opinions get expressed but exegetical proof is rare. However, if it has been done, maybe you could provide a quick summation regarding Romans 8, Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 (or a citation that we could read) that explains how these relate to believing.

      Then, “What do you both think the difference is between you (Troy/Rhutchin) and Leighton/FromOverHere? ”

      Dr. Flowers seems to be all over the place on this. At one point, he seems to say that all people are able to respond to the gospel (thereby denying TD) and elsewhere he seems to agree that faith is necessary to ability (thereby affirming TD). I am listening to more of his podcasts and I am amazed that he was ever a Calvinist given some of the things he says about those days. I never figured out what FromOverHere believes. He questions everything Calvinism says but never really seemed to offer a viable alternative (but he had opinions). So, the difference seems to be that Troy and I can explain what we believe and why and LF and DOH cannot explain what they believe (at least, not very well).

      Then, “You both could do the same. But you have to be willing.”

      When non-Calvinists start providing sound exegetical positions, anything could happen. Usually, we get monstrosities like “Chosen But Free,” by Geisler. The only person who seems to be able to articulate a position against Calvinism is Brian Wagner.

      Like

      1. Rhutchin,

        Regarding the scriptural support rebuking “regeneration precedes faith” you wrote…

        “I don’t think this has actually been done.”

        Of course you don’t. But why?

        “Some (Leighton/FOH) were convinced by what he said, but others (Troy/Rhutchin) would not believe.”

        Free will, brother.

        You ask… “How do you see the order here: being made alive followed by believing or believing followed by being made alive?”

        Just a gentle reminder, but you previously wrote…

        “Let’s make it, ‘Made alive together with Christ’ and ‘Look/believe’ and ‘live’. That agrees with Scripture, doesn’t it?”

        Alive (but not living)…..Look…..Live.

        Respectfully, I hope you can see just how ludicrous that reads.

        How I understand scripture (put in simple terms) its….

        Faith (thru grace; not works)….justification (acquitted/pardoned/found not guilty via the blood of Christ)…..regeneration (made alive together with Christ via the new birth).

        He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

        Like

  7. Troy writes….. “If it’s spiritual hearing, then faith is a fruit of spiritual hearing/understanding and we know from other scriptures that *natural man (unsaved man) can’t have spiritual hearing* (1 Cor. 2:14).”

    And yet (again)…..

    John 8:3-9 (NKJV)…..
    Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then *those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience*, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last.

    Strange response for a bunch of unregenerate sinners who, according to Calvinism, are completely unable to hear, much less understand, spiritual things.

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

    Like

    1. phillip writes, “Strange response for a bunch of unregenerate sinners who, according to Calvinism, are completely unable to hear, much less understand, spiritual things.”

      Good example of physical hearing – these guys had been to seminary – but an obvious deficiency of spiritual hearing else they would not have asked Jesus if they should stone her.

      Like

      1. Rhutchin writes… “Good example of physical hearing – these guys had been to seminary – but an obvious deficiency of spiritual hearing else they would not have asked Jesus if they should stone her.”

        Then why didn’t they go ahead and stone her, which the law required, instead of walking away?

        He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

        Like

      2. Great discussion Phillip! I like pointing to Mark 7:14 where Jesus calls everyone to “hear and understand.” Of course Calvinists say this is a universal call, that God knows only the elect will hear and understand… but to me that makes Jesus out to be a monster… Was there ever a lame man that Jesus said “get up” to and he wasn’t then able to get up?

        I also like pointing to Hebrews 3:7-8 where the warning – Today if you hear His voice harden not you heart – cannot fit the Calvinist elect for they cannot harden once they hear, and the warning would be deceptive since they would never perish. This warning cannot fit the Calvinist reprobate either, for they cannot hear, and the warning would be deceptive for them also, giving the impression that God doesn’t want them to perish!

        Like

      3. brianwagner writes, ” Of course Calvinists say this is a universal call, that God knows only the elect will hear and understand… ”

        I think the proper response would be, that of the disciples, “Jesus was saying, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’ And as soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.” (Mark 4) Isn’t that what we do with Scripture – “Lord, help me understand.” It’s not that the elect hear and understand; the elect know to ask God to explain it to them. So, it’s only a universal call in revealing to all that they cannot understand the Scriptures on their own.

        Then, “Was there ever a lame man that Jesus said “get up” to and he wasn’t then able to get up?”

        Even Lazarus had to get up and walk. When Jesus says, “Jump,” people jump. Physical healing is not salvation.

        Like

      4. Exactly… and hearing and understanding aren’t salvation either… they just graciously lead to salvation, but not irresistibly… just like miracles didn’t automatically give salvation to the one receiving the miracle… but it did give the gracious opportunity to believe in Jesus!

        Like

      5. brianwagner writes, “they just graciously lead to salvation, but not irresistibly… ”

        The irresistible part is their conveyance to the person by God. Once conveyed, things happen. Things conveyed irresistibly would be faith, the opening of one’s heart like Lydia, the new birth, a new heart, conviction of sin, etc.

        Then, “it did give the gracious opportunity to believe in Jesus!”

        An opportunity that proves irresistible.

        Like

      6. Brian wrote, “Exactly… and hearing and understanding aren’t salvation either… they just graciously lead to salvation, but not irresistibly..” This is faulty rationalization on your part Brian. The “hearing” and “understanding” that the Bible is speaking of is, in fact, irresistible because it REQUIRES a supernatural work of God in order to be accomplished. Not only do both the “hearing” and “understanding” lead to salvation, they’re a necessary part of the process of regeneration that’s inherent within God’s supernatural drawing spoken of in John 6. So your statement sir is fallacious on the grounds of your false assumption that salvation doesn’t require supernatural “ears”, “hearing”, or “understanding”. In fact, without it, the Gospel is only foolishness. Remember, true faith comes by hearing, but that hearing must be supernatural/spiritual, or else all (without exception) who physically hear the gospel will have saving faith. The second part of Romans 10:17 reveals that the source of this supernatural hearing is the supernatural application of the Word of God to our hearts.

        Like

      7. Jesus wasn’t lying when He told everyone in the crowd to “hear and understand.” Mark 7:14. Of course Calvinism must have Jesus being confused, having forgotten God’s secret will that keeps everyone from being able to hear and understand when God tells them to!

        Like

      8. Brian when Christ says, “let him that have ears to hear..” the obvious inference from that statement is that not all have ears to hear. Mark 8:18 demonstrates that one must have spiritual ears to perceive spiritual truth!
        I really can’t believe you’re using Mark 7:14 to prove your point. Jesus is simply call the crowd to listen to His words. But this is not to say that the crowd all had “ears to hear”.

        Like

      9. Calvinists bring their theology to a simple phrase that just means listen carefully and seek to understand! “He that has ears to hear, let him hear” is not a call to an eternally immutably pre-selected specially loved group… though every Calvinist somehow knows they are in that group and everyone who denies Calvinism somehow are not! 😉 Remember… no one is in the beloved group of elect until they are in Christ. Before that, they are not beloved! Rom 9:25

        Jesus would not need to say such words if indeed there was such a group. Think about it, if you have ears to hear! 😉

        Like

      10. Brian wrote, “Remember… no one is in the beloved group of elect until they are in Christ. Before that, they are not beloved! Rom 9:25” Yes it’s true that, in time, we are not apart of “the beloved” until regenerated. However, from an eternal perspective and in principle, we were apart of “the beloved” before creation (Eph 1:4).
        Also Romans 9:25 is talking about the Gentiles becoming apart of “the beloved” in contradistinction to the Jews. Context! Context! Context!

        Like

      11. You were not beloved, Troy. I would not call God a liar and declare that He always immutably loved you, when he said clearly you were not beloved until you were in Christ.

        Like

      12. brianwagner writes, “no one is in the beloved group of elect until they are in Christ. Before that, they are not beloved! Rom 9:25”

        Romans 9:25 refers to something entirely different.

        Romans 9
        22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?
        23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory–
        24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
        25 As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
        26 and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God’.”

        v25 explains v24, “not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.” The quote from Isaiah foretells the salvation of the Gentile which was always God’s plan (also Ephesians 3) – thus the intro, “As he says in Hosea…” In Hosea, God is speaking of the eventual salvation of the Gentiles. It says nothing about being in Christ or being in Christ as a condition for being called the elect. The use of “beloved,” (or loved one) refers to the Gentiles not being saved at that time but to their eventual salvation.

        Like

      13. Either “beloved” means the so-called “elect” or it means the so-called “reprobate”. I don’t think Calvinists want it to mean so-called “reprobate”. But whomever it means… they were not eternally immutably “beloved.”

        Like

      14. “just as He chose us in Him BEFORE the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love” -Ephesians‬ ‭1:4‬ ‭

        Like

      15. brianwagner writes, “Either “beloved” means the so-called “elect” or it means the so-called “reprobate”….But whomever it means… they were not eternally immutably “beloved.”

        Romans has, “I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.” This is a prophecy. It foretells the salvation of the gentiles who in the day of Isaiah were not being saved, but after Christ, God would begin drawing them to salvation. That God was going to do this was certain. The most you can argue is that God really didn’t know the individual gentiles whom He would save. Of course, if God wanted to know, He need only ask Himself.

        Like

      16. Sleep on it… the logic is sound… and you were evidently in recognition of it, Roger… that individuals who were not beloved/elect were now declared to be beloved/elect… not eternally immutably known as beloved/elect which would be God contradicting Himself!

        Like

      17. brianwagner writes, “Jesus wasn’t lying when He told everyone in the crowd to “hear and understand.” Mark 7:14.”

        In context we have,

        14 And after He called the multitude to Him again, He began saying to them, “Listen to Me, all of you, and understand:
        15 there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.
        16 [“If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.”]
        17 And when leaving the multitude, He had entered the house, His disciples questioned Him about the parable.

        So, the proper response is that of the disciples who admit that they do not understand and ask Jesus to explain what He meant. Apparently, Jesus told a parable that would not be understood by all – at least not by His disciples. So, maybe the Calvinists are onto something here.

        Like

      18. Roger… I will concede that the call to hear and understand in Mark 7:14 may end with not understanding what was heard… but there was enough understanding to know they better ask the source they heard for more information. That is a freewill choice. The other option is to harden and say, I don’t understand but I’m not going to humble myself and ask for more information.

        But if the person I heard told EVERYONE to hear and understand… it is a logical conclusion that it is possible for EVERYONE to gain understanding the speaker wants them to have somehow. That is like me saying to you – Fly to California… but you are a native in the Amazon and never saw an airplane… You would have to ask me how you would be able to do that, but if you trusted me, you would assume that I would not ask you to do something if there was no real way to do it! We build the airstrip, the plane lands, and I tell you to get on!

        Like

      19. Brian wrote, “it is a logical conclusion that it is possible for EVERYONE to gain understanding the speaker wants them to have somehow.” This is humanistic theology. It’s God’s prerogative to give a commandment that He knows can’t be obeyed. It’s not up to us to comprehend all of God’s decretal will. God gave a commandment for us to be holy as He is Holy, knowing full well that mankind could never fulfill that mandate. God is not obligated to give mankind the ability to adhere to all His commands, and to believe so is to place man’s thinking above God’s.

        Like

      20. Man can and does fulfill every divine mandate through being joined to Christ. Praise God that He leads all towards a relationship with Him that requires a humble response before we are joined to Christ!

        Like

      21. brianwagner writes, “Praise God that He leads all towards a relationship with Him…”

        Apparently, a little further with His elect – probably including a personal introduction.

        Like

      22. brianwagner writes, “but there was enough understanding to know they better ask the source they heard for more information. That is a freewill choice.”

        Proverbs 1 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Psalm 53 tells us, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God,'” Here, “fool,” refers to the unsaved. So, let’s take it that you are correct – which Romans 1 substantiates when it says, “that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” In Matthew 7, Jesus said, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” Here, “that which is holy,” and “pearls” refer to the gospel. So, people do have a freewill choice – the issue being to identify reasons why a person would not seek more information and how extensive this problem is. The Calvinist concludes that people do not seek more information because of their depraved nature and this condition extends to all the unsaved – the only way to escape this condition is through the Holy Spirit wielding the word. The task for the non-Calvinist is to identify another reason – that seems to be a difficulty for them.

        Then, “But if the person I heard told EVERYONE to hear and understand… it is a logical conclusion that it is possible for EVERYONE to gain understanding the speaker wants them to have somehow.”

        God instructed Israel to keep His law but it turned out that none could. Christ told people to hear and understand knowing that they also were unable to do so. Who really hears and understands without the help of the Holy Spirit?

        Then, “That is like me saying to you – Fly to California… but you are a native in the Amazon and never saw an airplane… You would have to ask me how you would be able to do that,…”

        Or, I could conclude that you are mentally unstable and walk away. The depraved mind considers the preaching of the cross to be foolishness; did not the Jewish leaders condemn Christ and call Him mad for saying He was God?

        Then, “but if you trusted me,…”

        The depraved mind does not trust Christ, does it?

        Like

      23. And thus you have made up your mind in spite of the evidence to the contrary, Roger. God gives enough light for the individual to decide to find out more or to turn away. The influences are sufficient in both directions. Our God does not deceive with His invitations or warnings to everyone.

        But it is true that once someone is recognized as a dog or pig… it is a waste of time to keep giving them information, except for the warning God gives which will hopefully remain as a seed breaking up some of the hardness. It is better to wait for God to interact with them in other ways to get them ready to listen… which He especially does in answer to our prayers.

        Dogs are those who when you share the gospel they attack to try to destroy you and your credibility any way they can. Pigs are those when you share the gospel respond with mockery and tomfoolery. Both show no interest in seeking.

        Like

      24. Brian writes, “God gives enough light for the individual to decide to find out more or to turn away.” This is not in the Bible!!

        Like

      25. brianwagner writes, “God gives enough light for the individual to decide to find out more or to turn away.”

        Now, for sound exegesis, you just have to get the Scriptures to say the same thing.

        Like

      26. brianwagner writes, “To whom much is given… much is required!”

        As it appears God has invested much in you, should not God require much from you – God did make you a teacher, did He not?

        Liked by 1 person

      27. Rhutchin writes:

        As it appears God has invested much in you, should not God require much from you – God did make you a teacher, did He not?

        Tangential –
        Always always always side-step the point hoping no one will notice.

        Brian has correctly called it your ‘tap dancing’ routine.

        Like

      28. Troy… Let me ask you a question about free-will. Was Adam able to choose to obey God’s command to not eat of the fruit, or was the influence of his wife’s voice too strong so that he had to decide to listen to her? Thx.

        I am asking because of your position is that the will must follow the strongest influence which would seem to me to suggest that Eve’s influence caused Adam to sin according to that position!

        Like

      29. If I may add to this conversation, “Mechanical Inclination” is obvious in Calvinism’s conception of free-will.

        The computer software program “Grandmaster Chess: Tournament” is based upon algorithms which DETERMINE the choices it makes for each move – but those INTERNAL DETERMINATIONS are pre-designed and PRE-DETERMINED by an EXTERNAL intelligence.

        This model of functionality has:
        (1) DETERMINATIVE INCLINATIONS which function INTERNALLY – but which are (2) PREDETERMINED by an intelligence (in this case a software programmer) who resides EXTERNALLY.

        Calvinism’s “free-will” follows the same model of functionality having:
        (1) DETERMINATIVE INCLINATIONS which function INTERNALLY (within the creature – in this case Adam), – but which are (2) PREDETERMINED by an intelligence (in this case a Theos) who resides EXTERNALLY.

        Liked by 1 person

      30. Great illustration and succinctly put, BrD. I hope you don’t mind if I add it the next time I post this question!

        Like

      31. First of all, Adam’s will to choose has to be distinguished from our will to choose because Adam’s will was not yet in bondage to a sinful nature. Obviously, God created Adam with the ability to sin. However, Adam did not possess the same propensity to sin as we do post fall.
        However, now we, as natural men, live in spiritual darkness, and just as Adam hid from God post fall, we too want nothing to do with a holy God (in fact, we hate Him) because we LOVE our sin.
        Now our “free will”, although free to make moral choices, is still in bondage to our nature and is incapable of making “spiritual choices” (i.e. salvation). Our will is ALWAYS inclined to fulfill our strongest desire and absent the HS’s supernatural indwelling of the believer, then we will always do what’s pleasing to the flesh. Why? Because we are void of the Spirit (Rom 8:9).
        Although we possess free will, we are still spiritually separated from God and only God can bridge that gap!

        Like

      32. In Calvinism, the condition of the creature whether pre-fall or post-fall is a tangential red hearing.
        Since Adam’s sin according to Calvin was caused by: -quote “By the secret predestination of god” and -quote “god arranged it”.

        A consequence of god predestining and arranging Adam’s sin is post fall condition of man.
        But a consequence is merely a byproduct of what caused that consequence.

        Whether pre-fall or post-fall, in Calvin’s scheme, all sin is caused by -quote “the secret predestination of god” , and (2) -quote “god arranges it”

        rhutchin reflecting Calvin’s view of god, quite instinctively likens men to -quote “self-motivated dominoes”

        Engineers classify falling dominoes as -quote “pitching mechanics”.
        So its easy to see rhuthins conception (that of Calvin’s) is that human functions are mechanical.
        Additionally, the domino is an entity designed by its creator for express purpose of falling.

        So rutchin without realizing it, is revealing, that Calvinism’s view of god, declares god designs angels and humans with the express purpose of falling. And that he arranges the minute details of every sin.

        Like

      33. Even Lazarus had to get up and walk. When Jesus says, “Jump,” people jump. Physical healing is not salvation.

        Tangential
        It proves Lazarus heard Jesus even in physical death.
        God is not a limited as the Calvinist imagines. 😉

        Like

      34. br.d writes, “It proves Lazarus heard Jesus even in physical death.”

        Or it proves that Lazarus was alive when Jesus spoke to him.

        Like

      35. phillip writes, “Then why didn’t they go ahead and stone her, which the law required, instead of walking away?”

        Some think it had to do with whatever Jesus wrote on the ground. Otherwise, they needed to get Jesus to say either “Stone her,” or “Don’t stone her,” but He foiled their plot, so nothing to be gained by stoning the woman (she was a foil anyway).

        Like

      36. phillip writes, “Then why didn’t they go ahead and stone her, which the law required, instead of walking away?”

        Some think it had to do with whatever Jesus wrote on the ground. Otherwise, they needed to get Jesus to say either “Stone her,” or “Don’t stone her,” but He foiled their plot, so nothing to be gained by stoning the woman (she was a foil anyway).

        Proving that they understood what Jesus said.

        Like

      37. br.d writes, “Proving that they understood what Jesus said.”

        The Jews were good at understanding Jesus. They were still spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb – Jesus was still the stumbling block.

        Like

      38. The Jews were good at understanding Jesus. They were still spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb – Jesus was still the stumbling block.

        The Jews then and the Calvinists after them 😉

        Like

      39. Troy this statement was not from me

        The Jews were good at understanding Jesus. They were still spiritually blind, deaf, and dumb – Jesus was still the stumbling block.

        I responded to this statement with “The Jews then – and the Calvinists after”

        Blessings!

        Like

      40. The spiritual understanding that the Bible speaks of is not concerned with know facts in the Bible or what Jesus said to people while on earth. Spiritual understanding is a supernatural gift that God bestows on His people that they may hear Christ’s voice SPIRITUALLY and obey it. Spiritual hearing/understanding is when the HS Himself applies the Gospel message to the hearts/minds of the elect so that they will freely choose to follow Christ and His Gospel. Understanding facts within the Bible is NOT the spiritual understanding that God uses to save.

        Like

    2. Huh??? Your understanding of Scripture is convoluted Phillip. You’re not good at comparing contexts and you pit Scripture vs Scripture to prove your presuppositions and that doesn’t work sir

      Like

      1. “Your understanding of Scripture is convoluted Phillip.”

        Thanks, brother! Coming from a Calvinist, that’s a compliment.

        Like

      2. But your follow up statement does not disprove the fact that, instead of harmonizing the Scriptures, you’re simply misapplying texts of Scripture to support your ideology. This is called eisegesis and is antithetical to sound biblical hermeneutics. Please quote Scripture and use it within it’s INTENDED context!

        Like

      3. “Please quote Scripture and use it within its INTENDED context!”

        You mean like you do with Romans 8:8?

        Practice what you preach, brother!

        Like

  8. “Citing Dr. Kenneth Keathley, ‘First, the many appeals in the Bible calling sinners to respond to the gospel imply that conversion results in regeneration. The Scriptures are presented as the seed the Spirit of God uses to bring about new life (I Pet. 1:23; James 1:18,21; I John 3:9).

    So, we have–

    “..you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God.” (1 Peter 1:23)

    “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we might be, as it were, the first fruits among His creatures.” (James 1:18)

    “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1 John 3:9)

    So, Keathley concludes, “That the Word of God is the Spirit’s instrumental means indicates that faith leads to regeneration.” However, none of these verses says anything about faith or intimates anything about the relationship between a person who is born again and faith. The conclusion that Keathley could properly draw is, “the Word of God is the Spirit’s instrumental means to bring about regeneration.” So, he overreaches on this point – his eisegesis trumps sound exegesis.

    Given that we also know that the Word of God is the Spirit’s instrumental means to convey faith to a person, it seems probable that regeneration and conveyance of faith occur more or less simultaneously. There is more. The argument is not about the presence of faith but the exercise of faith – The person must exercise faith to repent and believe before the new birth is said to occur. If that is the case, then the new birth results from man’s action (to repent and believe) and only indirectly from the word. The point is made by non-Calvinists that faith can be refused and repentance and belief rejected. If so, then only those who choose to receive faith and then choose to repent and believe are then in the position whereby the Spirit can use the word as the instrumental means to bring about regeneration and all who repent and believe would then be born again. This is counter to John 3, where Jesus says that the Spirit acts as it wishes without being provoked to act (i.e., the spirit does not have to wait for a person to repent and believe before it can act to regenerate).

    Like

    1. It is NOT counter to John 3… for “you can not tell from where He comes from or where He is going” does not teach regeneration before faith… If anything… though the exegesis is difficult in this verse because of the grammar of the phrase “so is everyone”… the meaning seems to be another mild rebuke to Nicodemus, like verse 12…

      Jesus is saying… the Holy Spirit is breathing [speaking] where He wants to – and don’t you [Nicodemus] recognize where it is coming from or where it is going [It is coming from God to you right now]. In the same way the one who has been born of the Spirit [speaks where he wants to]. The subject of the second clause is the one who has already been born of the Holy Spirit (perfect tense).

      To make that clause mean – In the same way the Holy Spirit breathes into the one being born again when He wants to, and that before they exercise any faith – is not only trying to prove too much from this verse, but it is making the object of the prepositional phrase, “of the Spirit”, the subject of this last clause, turning the real subject (the one who has been born of God) into an object of an unseen preposition (into) and also changes the tense of the subject, the periphrastic participle, from perfect to present – “the one who has been born again” to “the one being born again.”

      But Calvinists don’t seem to mind twisting verses away from their normal grammar and contextual meanings to try to feign support for their harmful deterministic teachings!

      Like

      1. Brian wrote, “Jesus is saying… the Holy Spirit is breathing [speaking] where He wants to..” Brian! Brian! Brian! Brother where in all of Holy Writ does “breathing” refer to “speaking”. Please provide biblical support for this interjection into the passage.
        However, it is quite substantiated throughout Scripture that the HS’s breathing refers to giving both physical and spiritual life, as well as, power to obey ! Shall we cite several verses supporting this truth:
        Gen 2:7; Job 33:4; Is 42:5; Ezek 37:6; Jn 20:22
        I’ve never found in all of Scripture where “breath”, “breathe”, or “breathing” refers to speaking to someone; especially not in reference to the HS.

        Like

      2. The best connection of Spirit breathing truth is found in the word “inspiration” – θεοπνευστος – “God breathed”, confirming the power of the Scriptures when heard even by hard hearts! “He that has ears to hear, let him hear!”

        Like

      3. Brian I’m perceiving that you are not one to admit when you’re wrong. That last response you gave was totally unrelated to what I asserted. Your response proves that you eisegetically inserted YOUR belief onto the text in John 3 in spite of your attempts to explain away the true intentions of Christ’s teaching by appealing to the Greek language.
        The fact is that when the Bible speaks of Holy Spirit “breathing”, it NEVER relates to Him speaking! It relates to His giving of life and power.
        Brian writes, “..confirming the power of the Scriptures when heard even by hard hearts!” Brian you’re simply in denial brother whenever you make assertions like this when you know that the Gospel is foolishness to the natural man. The Gospel is only powerful when accompanied by the HS my friend.
        I presented you with the scenario of you and I hearing the Gospel and you believed and I didn’t. You were so arrogant to respond that you didn’t harden your heart. So that gives YOU the credit because you were SO humble.

        Like

      4. 1Peter 1:23-25 “… having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, ….Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.”

        Sounds to me like the Spirit’s breathed Word that is preached and believed before regeneration takes place.

        As the parable of the sower points out… word preached, heart believes, everlasting life (new birth) given… that’s the order!

        Like

      5. The Word preached must be accompanied by the Spirit or else it’s just foolishness to unsaved mankind. This is Bible101! All the passages you provide that teach the word having power must be seen in light of ALL of Scripture Brian. You’re simply isolating texts to prove a false premise that just will not stand up to the scrutiny of tota scriptura. Your arguments are just too easy to refute when compared with Scripture brother!

        Like

      6. The evil one certainly knows how powerful the word is on it own… that’s why he tries to take it out of hard hearts lest the believe and are born again. He must have missed the Calvinism class when it was offered! 😂

        Like

      7. The evil one certainly knows how powerful the word is on it own… that’s why he tries to take it out of hard hearts lest the believe and are born again. He must have missed the Calvinism class when it was offered!

        So true!!! How silly the little Calvinists are – imagining themselves so superior to others.
        What a laugh!!! A brother I knew from the south would say – Bless their little pointed heads!! 😀

        Like

      8. brianwagner writes, “The evil one certainly knows how powerful the word is on it own… that’s why he tries to take it out of hard hearts lest the(y) believe and are born again.”

        Of course, this is true – he is Satan after all. However, we read elsewhere, “our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction;” (1 Thessalonians 1) The key phrase being, “… in word only, but …” Certainly, Satan can short circuit the process by taking the word out of the hard hearts – but only from those who do not understand (Matthew 13) and they do not understand because the Holy Spirit must help in the understanding. That this is true is seen in two other soils where two other instances are described where understanding is missing. In the end, Satan can only take the word from those left unprotected by the Holy Spirit.

        Like

      9. In word only does not mean without its own live power or ineffectual! But Paul is reminding them of other effectual graces that accompanied it. Nor is Paul saying that the “power… Spirit… and conviction” could not be resisted. Indeed they were by many Thessalonians.

        Like

      10. brianwagner writes, “1Peter 1:23-25 “… having been born again,…through the word of God…Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.” Sounds to me like the Spirit’s breathed Word that is preached and believed before regeneration takes place.”

        That is called jumping to a conclusion (that is not warranted). Can we agree that the verse, tells us that the person is “born again” consequent to one hearing the word preached? You add, “…and believed…” That is your personal eisegesis, isn’t it? If your eisegesis is not warranted by context, then the Calvinist can rightly conclude that one is “born again” or regenerated through the preached word and this then enables belief.

        Like

      11. The Gospel is according to the Scriptures… The Scriptures are Spirit breathed, living, active, dividing thoughts and intents in their use. No illogical conclusion was being jumped! Others can decide if the criticism sounds as shallow to them as it does not me!

        Like

      12. The Gospel is nothing more than mere words without the accompaniment of the Spirit. This is why it’s foolishness to the natural man.

        Like

      13. brianwagner writes, “The best connection of Spirit breathing truth is found in the word “inspiration” – θεοπνευστος – “God breathed”, confirming the power of the Scriptures when heard even by hard hearts!”

        That word appears only once in the Scriptures from what I can find.

        2 Timothy 3
        16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
        17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

        In context, it relates to the “man of God.” One purpose of the Scriptures are to equip the believer for every good work. In this context, the Scriptures would have no application to the lost. This word is not used in the Scriptures “confirming the power of the Scriptures when heard even by hard hearts!” That seems to be your personal philosophy.

        Like

      14. Roger… you set yourself up for this one… The context of 2Tim 3:16 is also verse 15 where the same Scriptures have the ability in themselves to provide wisdom leading to salvation through faith in Christ!

        Like

      15. brianwagner writes, “The context of 2Tim 3:16 is also verse 15 where the same Scriptures have the ability in themselves to provide wisdom leading to salvation through faith in Christ!”

        OK. Let’s look at context.

        2 Timothy 3
        14 You [Timothy], however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them;
        15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
        16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
        17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

        v16-17 tell us that the Scriptures are given by God to prepare the believer for every good work. In v14-15, we have the example of Timothy who was taught the Scriptures by his mother and grandmother from birth. Paul then says that the Scriptures “…are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation…” Paul does not say that they will, but that they are able. Thus, we anticipate that two different people, both having learned the Scriptures from birth may go in two different directions (or do you propose that all who are taught the Scriptures from birth will be saved?). We would then rightly conclude that something else is going on. In 1 Thessalonians 1, Paul writes, “…our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit…” From this, we can conclude that the word is “able” and combined with the Holy Spirit, is effective. The word is necessary to salvation, but so is the working of the Holy Spirit through the word.

        Originally, you wrote, “The best connection of Spirit breathing truth is found in the word “inspiration” – θεοπνευστος – “God breathed”, confirming the power of the Scriptures when heard even by hard hearts!”

        The issue is not the Spirit breathing truth into the words of men to produce Scripture as Paul is not saying that Spirit-breathed Scriptures produce salvation, but they are able to produce salvation and this only when combined with the power of the holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit produces the scriptures that He then uses to bring God’s elect to salvation. “[God] who began a good work in [His elect] will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus, ” and “we [God’s elect] are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.]

        Like

      16. The Word is living and active and able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ… even if the Spirit doesn’t help… though I can’t imagine why He wouldn’t when He sees that Word already cutting away in the thoughts and intents of a person’s heart… especially when He desires every man to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Though I understand that Calvinists don’t seem to want everyone to be given that opportunity for a freewill choice for or against salvation, because they don’t believe God wants that for everyone!

        Like

      17. Brian writes, “The Word is living and active and able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ… even if the Spirit doesn’t help..” This is why I accuse Brian of rank heresy!! Brian is espousing a view that promotes human ability to become saved APART from any action of the HS. This is Pelagian to the core and has been condemned as unorthodox and heretical.
        Brian is promoting a Gospel that teaches that man ON HIS OWN has the ability to respond to a God-inspired Gospel. But he also teaches a kind of prevenient grace in the form of “light” or a “general enlightenment” that gives every man the ability to respond to the Gospel. This is a false Gospel because it teaches that salvation doesn’t REQUIRE any divine initiative or intervention apart from man’s autonomous free will.

        Like

      18. brianwagner writes, “The Word is living and active and able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Christ… even if the Spirit doesn’t help… ”

        There is the rub. Does the word affect a person by itself or is it the Spirit wielding it that makes for a powerful combination.

        The, “Though I understand that Calvinists don’t seem to want everyone to be given that opportunity for a freewill choice for or against salvation, because they don’t believe God wants that for everyone!”

        The Calvinist understands God to have an eternal plan that He is bringing to completion.

        Like

      19. The fact is that Christ is teaching a doctrine that appear to be impossible from a human standpoint and Nicodemus realizes this. Christ is teaching a Pharisee (someone quite familiar with the Scriptures) about the nature and origen of salvation. So Nicodemus is rightly befuddled because Jesus is teaching a salvation that is humanly IMPOSSIBLE and outside of man’s power to effectuate. When Christ tells Nicodemus you must be born from above, Nicodemus understood the utter impossibility of this. But Christ reiterated that salvation is wrought from above. The Christ gives Nicodemus some insight as to how God accomplishes this miracle – that is, the HS initiates spiritual life wherever and whenever He wishes. Salvation is entirely the decision and action of the HS alone. Salvation begins with God’s action!! You must be born FROM ABOVE!!

        Like

      20. New birth is from above and impossible for man to cause… but according to God’s promise He causes it after the light He gives is received freely through repentance and faith! Praise His Name!

        Like

      21. Troy writes:
        “To the contrary, your position is far-fetched if one is a serious Bible student.”

        “Serious Bible student!”

        The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaks proud things

        Like

      22. brianwagner writes, “New birth is from above and impossible for man to cause… but according to God’s promise He causes it after the light He gives is received freely through repentance and faith!”

        I had though that your position was that “light” was given to all people to lead each person to seek God and this would hopefully be followed by repentance and faith. Now, you seem to say that light must be “received freely through repentance and faith” which seems to negate any purpose to get a person to seek God. So, you have confused me.

        Like

      23. It’s not either/or but both, Roger… sorry for the confusion… the light must be received at every stage it is pursued through repentance and faith and it leads them to seek God. If they do… they receive more light until the moment they must repent and trust in the gospel. When God sees that condition met, He gives the new birth.

        Like

      24. Nowhere is this remotely taught in Scripture. This is a man-made doctrine that represents a false Gospel. Brian you have developed a doctrine that you have rationalized to be truthful, but it’s not found in Scripture my friend. Very dangerous!!

        Like

      25. You are no authority to listen to when you state something is not in Scripture after an abundance of Scripture evidence has been shared to you showing it has. The readers of our conversation, I am guessing, are not impressed by your posturing, Troy!

        Like

      26. Jesus said to his disciples “you don’t know what spirit you are of”
        Notice he didn’t say “you are demon possessed”.

        Like

      27. brianwagner writes, “the light must be received at every stage it is pursued through repentance and faith and it leads them to seek God.”

        By “light” you now appear to mean no more that the Scriptures.

        Then, “they receive more light until the moment they must repent and trust in the gospel. When God sees that condition met, He gives the new birth.”

        Or the new birth conveyed through the light propels a person to repentance and trust. You continue to state your position but never argue (prove through the Scriptures) that your position is correct.

        Like

      28. Light takes different forms… including the Scriptures sometimes. And your false profession, Roger, of what I have done or not done is rather annoying… “never argue (prove through the Scriptures) that your position is correct.” Really!!! You should at least put the caveat… “to my liking” in such statements. Those kind of statements make you sound very proud and authoritarian.

        Like

      29. Ahhhhh Brian, you are guilty of the same thing in your interactions with me. Let’s refrain from the ad hominem statements if we’re guilty of the same.

        Like

      30. brianwagner writes, “Those kind of statements make you sound very proud and authoritarian.”

        It is rare that you appeal to the Scriptures in the course of your comments. Even you can see that.

        Like

      31. Who took my friend Roger away and replaced him with someone who does not see all the passages I have discussed using logic and meaning from normal rules of grammar? Would you like me to list them from this page alone? Those which I started the conversation concerning, but not all, are – Mark 7:14, John 1:4-13, 3:8, 12:35-36, Rom 9:25, 2Tim 3:15, 16, Heb 3:7-8, 4:12, 1Pet 1:23-25. I did get into a little give n take with Troy over his temerity without evidence, and with you for unjustified criticism, like the one I am now responding to! 😉

        Like

      32. If all the feedback you get in your religious circles, is that of religious pride, then a little feedback from another Christian perspective will be a good thing.

        Like

      33. brianwagner writes, “It is NOT counter to John 3… for “you can not tell from where He comes from or where He is going” does not teach regeneration before faith…”

        I read it only to say that the Holy Spirit is not provoked to action by anything other than itself. Keathley is arguing that the Spirit responds to those who exercise faith – repenting and believing – so that the Holy Spirit reacts to people who repent and believe by giving them new birth. He makes the Spirit reactive and not proactive. Are you contending that the Spirit thinks about it and can do otherwise as Keathley seems to say?

        If the Spirit reacts to the exercise of faith, then it would be difficult to compare it to wind as one would see the spirit coming given the exercise of faith. The Spirit can be proactive – as described in 3:8 – only where faith follows His action and is not the cause of His action.

        Then, “Jesus is saying… the Holy Spirit is breathing [speaking]…”

        This is an interesting way to see it, but certainly not the only way. Jesus could be making a simple comparison between the wind and the spirit. The wind blows and no one would know it if it did not produce an effect (a sound) but still no one knows where the wind came from or where it is going. So it is with the one having been born of the spirit – he didn’t see the Spirit coming and did not perceive its presence until he saw the effect in himself.

        If you want to have it as the Holy Spirit speaking, then He must be speaking to those who have ears to hear – thus, not everyone, so not necessarily framed as a question, “…don’t you [Nicodemus] recognize where it is coming from..” but as a statement, “…you don’t recognize where it is coming from until it is upon you.”

        This makes the statement, “so it is with everyone having been born of the Spirit,” to say that those on whom the Spirit acts never saw it coming.

        I don’t think that Calvinists are trying to introduce faith into 3:8 (even though 3:8 can be cited in a broader discussion concerning the role of faith in salvation). In 3:8, however, faith is not mentioned and there is no purpose to introduce it up to explain the verse.

        Like

      34. Roger said – “He (Keathley) makes the Spirit reactive and not proactive.” The Scripture teaches both! God is proactive in making the conditions He wants for His plan of salvation. He is proactive in speaking when He wants to, giving light to each person. He is reactive to His plan when He see the conditions of repentance and faith met. And He is proactive in giving the new birth after seeing those conditions met.

        Like

      35. Brian wrote, “He is reactive to His plan when He see the conditions of repentance and faith met.” There are no preconditions for salvation! God simply saves! Repentance and faith are His work in us. It only becomes our repentance and faith once we experience it for ourselves through conversion. From predestination to glorification God is working out His own salvation plan.

        Like

      36. brianwagner writes, “He is proactive in giving the new birth after seeing those conditions met.”

        If one acts in response to certain conditions being met, then that is reactive – God reacts to those who meets His conditions and ignores those who do not. Of course, God could be said to proactively ignore those who do not meet His conditions (and unknown to them) rather than proactively help them meet those conditions..

        Like

      37. brianwagner writes, “Thankfully He helps them to seek to meet the conditions!”

        A nice Calvinistic response. Without God’s help, disaster!

        Like

      38. brianwagner writes, “and when they respond to His help in repentance and faith He gives the new birth!”

        Or the new birth is part of God’s help, and this before God gives additional help through His gift of faith which, evidently, He only gives to His elect.

        Like

      39. There is no verse that says there is no faith before the new birth… but actually there are verses that say there is… John 1:12, 12:36, 20:31.

        Like

      40. brianwagner writes, “There is no verse that says there is no faith before the new birth…”

        Technically correct. However, this does not mean that there is faith before the new birth. As to the relation of faith and the new birth, we have, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God;” (1 John 5:1) This places the new birth prior to believing in Christ – the one who is born of God believes that Jesus is the Christ. So, at least we know that both faith and the new birth precede one believing in Christ. Faith is a gift from God that leads one to believe in Christ. The new birth is a gift from God that leads one to see the kingdom of God. So, when does God give each gift. The Scriptures don’t tell us explicitly – it allows for the gift of the new birth to precede the gift of faith.

        Then, “but actually there are verses that say there is… John 1:12, 12:36, 20:31.”

        OK. Let’s look at these verses.

        “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,…” (John 1:12)

        Presuming that faith is a prerequisite for receiving and believing, then faith comes before the ” right to become children of God.” Now, you have to demonstrate the the new birth is the same as becoming a child of God. If not, then your point fails.

        “While you have the light, believe in the light, in order that you may become sons of light.” These things Jesus spoke, and He departed and hid Himself from them.” (John 12:36)

        This tells us that one must believe in the light in order to become a son (child) of light. Here, you seem to equate “Light” with God” – believe in God to become a son of God. As before, you need to show that son of light is the new birth. If not, then your point fails, again.

        “these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)

        “Life” here seems to refer to eternal life. So, your point is that the new birth refers to eternal life. Again, if you can show that to be the case, you can prove your point.

        Like

      41. Those verses clearly prove the point made, Roger… it is only those who reject clarity of meaning because of their loyalty to their theology that would say otherwise. When you were born… were you immediately a child or not? Whose child were you? To try to argue as a theological lawyer that the fact of being given birth by God should be disassociated from the fact of being a child of God would have any jury of laymen rolling their eyes in disbelief! 😉

        Like

      42. brianwagner writes, “To try to argue as a theological lawyer that the fact of being given birth by God should be disassociated from the fact of being a child of God would have any jury of laymen rolling their eyes in disbelief!”

        Says the frustrated teacher who can’t quite get the Scriptures to say what he wants them to say.

        Like

      43. God wrote the Bible in such a manner as to seal men in their unbelief. It’s only when we harmonize ALL that the Scriptures teach on a subject, will we come to truth. Jesus teaches that you must be born FROM ABOVE! This means that something OUTSIDE man’s ability/control must occur FIRST!
        Also Christ’s usage of the concept of “birth” demonstrates the impossibility of mankind to exercise his faith because, just as we had no control over our physical birth, we also have no control over our spiritual birth. The Spirit blows where it wishes!
        Neither Brian, nor Leighton, nor any man can change or alter this truth. God’s decree trumps man’s wisdom!

        Like

      44. The statement – “God wrote the Bible in such a manner as to seal men in their unbelief” – is such a harmful lie about God, with no evidence in Scripture to back it up… but clear evidence to the contrary…

        John 20:31 “…but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

        Like

      45. John 20:31 “…but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”

        At the same time, Paul tells us, “by grace you have been saved through faith;…it is the gift of God;” Jesus, said, “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Then Paul, says, “…the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness,…we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,…”

        There is a need to harmonize all that the Scriptures tell us about salvation. In doing so, we find the conclusion drawn by Paul, “[God] who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” and “we are [God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” John tells us the truth in 20:31 – he wrote the book of John so that both Jews and gentiles might believe. Yet, it is still true that it is God’s providence and grace toward His elect that they read John’s book and believe.

        Like

      46. John was writing to unbelievers. You have to prove he was thinking that he was writing only for an eternally immutably preselected group. The gospel is foolishness to the nations from their worldly aposteriori viewpoint… that is why God must give revelation light first… which He gives to each human. The must seek while they have that light.

        Like

      47. brianwagner writes, “John was writing to unbelievers. You have to prove he was thinking that he was writing only for an eternally immutably preselected group.”

        John also wrote John 3 and 6. I think John understood the dynamics of God’s involvement coupled with the necessity of belief and that the actions of people were subordinate to, and dependent on, God’s activity (e.g., gift of faith).

        Like

      48. brianwagner writes, “Still waiting for evidence where John taught a preselected elect group ….”

        “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6)

        “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.” (John 6)

        “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me, unless it has been granted him from the Father.” (John 6)

        “If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8)

        “John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing, unless it has been given him from heaven.” (John 3) reinforced in 1 Corinthians 3, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.”

        “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

        “[Jesus] said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee, even as Thou gavest Him authority over all mankind, that to all whom Thou hast given Him, He may give eternal life.” (John 16)

        “Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world.” (John 17)

        ““But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they shall never perish; and no one shall snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” (John 10)

        Like

      49. … still waiting… Nothing, Roger, in those verses said chosen eternally, immutably or before creation, or “elect” before faith, that I saw. They just affirmed that God must work before salvation can be received through faith! Amen… Praise His Name!

        Like

      50. This comment simply reflects a stubborness and unwillingness to believe the truths of the Scriptures. The fact is, that an omniscient God knows, before He creates, who He will give to the son. I’m sorry Brian, but your position is simply ridiculous when weighed in the balance of Scripture.

        Like

      51. brianwagner writes, “Nothing, Roger, in those verses said chosen eternally, immutably or before creation, or “elect” before faith, that I saw.

        That’s because you wrote “waiting for evidence where John taught a preselected elect group.” Might I conclude that you understand those verses to point to a “preselected elect group” and realize you asked the wrong question which you now want to correct?

        Then, “They just affirmed that God must work before salvation can be received through faith!”

        Well, that’s progress. Can we agree that God must supply faith before salvation can be received? Thus, one of God’s works (or graces of which Paul says, “You are saved by grace.”) is the provision of faith – which supports the doctrine of total depravity and explains Jesus statement, “No one can come to me…”

        Like

      52. Still waiting… The ability to believe is given to all at birth… and was not destroyed in the fall. The grace needed for salvation must go through that faith… so that faith must be in place first. That grace includes regeneration, so that too must come after faith is in place. Actually it fairly easy to see in Scripture if one is willing to jettison their loyalty to the man-made dogma of determinism! 😎

        Like

      53. “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” -John‬ ‭6:37‬ ‭

        “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;” -John‬ ‭10:27‬ ‭

        Like

      54. Brian writes, “You have to prove he was thinking that he was writing only for an eternally immutably preselected group.” My brother you’re simply not thinking clearly. John can ONLY be referring to the elect because only the elect will believe! I know you can comprehend this, but your systematic and pride will not allow you to.
        Brian, for someone who pushes learning the laws of logic, you oftentimes fail to reduce your statements to their logical conclusions. If everyone who is perishing has this “prevenient light” (which gives them the ability to believe), why is it that most still find the message foolish if we all have this light when we come into the world? Exactly how does your “light” doctrine work when providing enablement to all but only some believe; especially in light of the fact that all are perishing before they’re saved and the Gospel is foolishness to “ALL that are perishing”?

        Like

  9. Romans 8:8… “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”

    Again, IN CONTEXT, the verse is speaking of pleasing God via keeping the law (Romans 8:7) and obtaining His righteous requirements (Romans 8:4). This is proper exegesis. Those who add faith to this portion of scripture are guilty of committing eisegesis.

    1 Corinthians 2:14…. “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

    Again, IN CONTEXT, this is referring to the “deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10). This is proper exegesis. Those who add the gospel of Christ are guilty of eisegesis. The scriptures declare that the gospel is something that even a child can understand (2 Timothy 3:15).

    Also, to rebuke our Calvinists brothers rendering of these verses actual biblical examples have been provided (Mark 7:14, Mark 12:32-34, John 8:3-9, Hebrews 3:7-8). We are allowing scripture (biblical examples) to interpret scripture (written).

    Instead of providing actual biblical examples of man being regenerated prior to faith (which they can’t), they instead resort to words like…. “convoluted, eisegesis, wrong, and sub-biblical” just to name a few.

    So, with all that said, who is guilty of eisegesis? Who is inserting their belief into the text? Who won’t admit when their wrong? Whose understanding of scripture is convoluted? Who is misapplying texts of Scripture to support their ideology?

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

    Like

    1. phillip writes, “Romans 8:8… “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
      Again, IN CONTEXT, the verse is speaking of pleasing God via keeping the law (Romans 8:7) and obtaining His righteous requirements (Romans 8:4). This is proper exegesis. Those who add faith to this portion of scripture are guilty of committing eisegesis.”

      Not so. Hebrews 11 tells us, “…without faith it is impossible to please Him…” This is an universal truth. Those in the flesh do not have faith. This says that the unsaved (those in the flesh) cannot please God (because they do not have faith). That this is true should be obvious even to those who casually read the Scriptures. To ascribe this to eisegesis is foolishness. As v7 tells us, those in the flesh are “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;” While there is a direct application of this to the Jews, it is obvious that it applies to Gentiles as well (are we to think that Gentiles, to whom the law was not given, would have some advantage over the Jews in this regard?).

      Then, “1 Corinthians 2:14…. “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
      Again, IN CONTEXT, this is referring to the “deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10). This is proper exegesis.”

      Not so. v10 tells us that the Spirit searches out everything, even the deep things of God. v12 then deals with some of those things – “that we might know the things freely given to us by God,” Included among those things of God freely given to us is the gospel.

      Then, “The scriptures declare that the gospel is something that even a child can understand (2 Timothy 3:15).”

      Not exactly. It speaks of Timothy and says, “from childhood you have known the sacred writings.” Earlier, Paul has written, “I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois, and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well.” Thus, we have the special circumstances that attend a child born to a child with at least one parent who teaches them the Scriptures. It may be true that a child can understand the Scriptures but not without the opportunity to do so with that opportunity requiring several things including the guidance of the Holy Spirit and faith.

      Then, “to rebuke our Calvinists brothers rendering of these verses actual biblical examples have been provided (Mark 7:14, Mark 12:32-34, John 8:3-9, Hebrews 3:7-8). We are allowing scripture (biblical examples) to interpret scripture (written).”

      The Calvinists argue that there is more to sound exegesis than the superficial rendering of verses apart from context.

      Then, “Instead of providing actual biblical examples of man being regenerated prior to faith (which they can’t), they instead resort to words like…. “convoluted, eisegesis, wrong, and sub-biblical” just to name a few.”

      Surely you jest! Do not Calvinists point to Lydia whose heart was opened by God – but then you did say, “man” so maybe you meant to exclude women.

      Then, “So, with all that said, who is guilty of eisegesis? Who is inserting their belief into the text? Who won’t admit when their wrong? Whose understanding of scripture is convoluted? Who is misapplying texts of Scripture to support their ideology?”

      Given your arguments above, I see you making a strong case for yourself.

      Like

  10. Troy writes…. “There are no preconditions for salvation! God simply saves!”

    Talk about a heart of stone.

    Mark 16:16…
    He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

    Acts 16:31…
    So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    Romans 10:9….
    ….that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

    Seems pretty straight forward to me.

    Like

    1. All of those verses, when compared with all of Scripture, will reveal that God is the ultimate cause behind them. Brother Phillip I’m telling you that the Bible was written in such a manner as to seal men in their unbelief and false teachings. The Bible is the mind of God and must be CAREFULLY SEARCHED OUT AND DISECTED!!

      Like

  11. Rhutchin’s method of interpretation is a perfect example of eisegesis. Rhutchin takes the language of Romans 8:8 and blurs it with Hebrews 11:6. The scriptures here are showing a clear distinction. In Romans 8:1-8 Paul is telling his audience that man cannot please God by keeping His law (verse 4) and obtaining His righteous requirements (verse 7). Paul later confirms this in Galatians 2:16 when he writes…

    “….knowing that a man is not justified by *the works of the law* but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by *the works of the law*; for by *the works of the law* no flesh shall be justified.”

    Now, regarding Hebrews 11:6……
    But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

    Nowhere in this verse (or anywhere in scripture for that matter) does it say “the unsaved (those in the flesh) cannot please God (because they do not have faith).” The scriptures declare that fallen man cannot please God by keeping His laws. The only way fallen man can please God is by believing His word (spoken or written). And that is precisely what Hebrews 11 is saying by given Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham as biblical examples of fallen man being declared righteous by faith. Nowhere in scripture does it ever state, or even hint, that these men had previously been regenerated by God. But for the Calvinists, they had to be.

    Finally, Rhutchin writes… “Do not Calvinists point to Lydia whose heart was opened by God….”

    Of course they do! Calvinists use the example of Lydia in a desperate attempt to show that she had been regenerated by God upon hearing Paul’s message.

    Regarding fallen man, Calvinists write….

    “It has made him love sin and hate God. The doctrine of total depravity is a very humbling one.” – A. W. Pink

    “They hate God and do not want Him, as is the case of every person without the Spirit……People reject Christ for a reason. They hate God and they hate the gospel of Jesus Christ.” – John Hendryx

    “It is only the direct intervention of God while in this state of death, that changes the disposition of a man’s heart to desire God and to be right with Him. Hearts are changed from God haters into God lovers by His all-conquering grace alone.” – John Samson

    Calvinism teaches that fallen man, by nature, hates God. Even Troy has said so on this very thread. According to Calvinism, He must change them from God-haters to God-lovers. This is done by the process of regeneration.

    However, the example of Lydia fails. Prior to God opening her heart, Luke already describe Lydia as a worshipper of the One True God (Acts 16:14). Paul even found her at “a place of prayer” (Acts 16:13). Odd place to find a “God-hater”. Not only is Lydia not an example of regeneration prior to faith, she is actually an example against TD/TI. God’s opening of Lydia’s heart is just an example of God planting the seed (the very word of God/the gospel of Christ) in her mind.

    So, once again we have our Calvinists brothers displaying their eisegesis of the scriptures, again, in a desperate attempt to support their ideology.

    Will they heed this explanation? No. I suspect it will only harden their hearts (free will!).

    Of course, what should we expect from our Calvinist brothers who believe….

    “Alive (but not living)…..Look…..Live.”

    And…..

    “A man is not saved because he believes in Christ; he believes in Christ because he is saved.”

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Phillip you’re missing the point behind why Robert is comparing Romans 8 with Hebrews 11. The point he’s solidifying is that natural man lacks the saving faith to please God. Without this supernatural saving faith, mankind only has his flesh and therefore cannot please God.
      Just as I explained to you before, Romans 8 is teaching a dichotomy between those who are in the flesh (void of the Spirit) and those who have the Spirit. Those void of the Spirit cannot please God even when they do good deeds.

      Like

    2. phillip writes, “Nowhere in this verse (or anywhere in scripture for that matter) does it say “the unsaved (those in the flesh) cannot please God (because they do not have faith).” The scriptures declare that fallen man cannot please God by keeping His laws. The only way fallen man can please God is by believing His word (spoken or written).”

      Can a person keep the law without also having faith? I say, No. If a person cannot keep the law, then he cannot have faith. If a person has faith, then he can keep the law. We agree that, “The only way fallen man can please God is by believing His word (spoken or written).” Of course, to believe God’s word requires faith.

      In Romans 8 and Hebrews 11 there are two statements of truth.
      1. “…those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” – If A (those in the flesh) then B (cannot please God)
      2. “…without faith it is impossible to please God.” – If B (cannot please God) then C (without faith)
      The conclusion can be drawn, A (to be in the flesh) is C (to be without faith)

      If both (1) and (2) are true, then it must be true that those who are in the flesh are without faith. It would be illogical to conclude (1) that those in the flesh have faith and cannot please God or (2) that those in the flesh are without faith and can please God.

      Sound exegesis takes one Scripture and insists that it be consistent with all other Scripture. Insisting that the truth of Romans 8 be consistent with Hebrews 11 allows us to draw additional truth – that those in the flesh do not have faith.

      Then, “Calvinists use the example of Lydia in a desperate attempt to show that she had been regenerated by God upon hearing Paul’s message.”

      Not exactly. Calvinists say that the “opening of Lydia’s heart” is regeneration and precedes her exercise of faith to believe.

      Then, “Calvinism teaches that fallen man, by nature, hates God.”

      Such is the depraved mind. Do you disagree with the Calvinists on this?

      Then, “Luke already describe Lydia as a worshipper of the One True God (Acts 16:14).”

      The major translations have “worshipper of God,” not “a worshipper of the One True God.” Without God’s work to open her heart, Lydia would not have responded to Paul’s message. Would She? We can agree that, “God’s opening of Lydia’s heart is just an example of God planting the seed (the very word of God/the gospel of Christ) in her mind.” Else, how could she be saved? Thus, Paul can write, “I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 1) and then Ephesians 2, “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,…”

      Like

      1. You really should take a course in logic Roger, if you haven’t already. I recommend Geisler and Brooks book, Come Let us Reason. You have just committed the undistributed middle fallacy! All A is C, All B is C does not logically mean All A is B.

        Like

      2. One does not need to understand the rules of logic to be led by the HS into truth. Scripture teaches that all A is B for Scripture separates those in the flesh as unregenerate and those in the Spirit as regenerate and pleasing to God. The context of Romans 8 is making a definite dichotomy between who can and cannot please God. To be in the flesh in Romans 8 is equal to not having the Spirit and it’s impossible to please God if one is not indwelt by the Spirit!

        Like

      3. Troy writes
        “One does not need to understand the rules of logic to be led by the HS into truth.”

        This is classic Calvinist thinking
        Christian history shows us in hundreds of examples how many abuses have been perpetrated – claimed as led by the HS.

        The spirit of God is not the spirit of confusion. And fallacious logic is confusion.
        Calvinist say these things because double-think and fallacious logic is part of their thinking.

        Like

      4. I repeat..one does not need to know the rules of logic in order for the HS to reveal truth. In fact, most people who come to truth have no idea of what the rules of logic are.

        Like

      5. Troy writes
        “I repeat..one does not need to know the rules of logic in order for the HS to reveal truth. In fact, most people who come to truth have no idea of what the rules of logic are.”

        How do you discern the spirit of error?

        Like

      6. brianwagner writes, “All A is C, All B is C does not logically mean All A is B.”

        We are not dealing with equalities here. We have A then B and B then C which gives A then C.

        A (those in the flesh) then B (cannot please God)
        B (cannot please God) then C (without faith)
        Therefore, A (those in the flesh) then C (without faith)

        Like

      7. There is no verse that says if they cannot please God they are without faith… certainly not Heb 11:6! It just says faith is an ingredient for pleasing God… even demons have it… but there are only ingredients besides faith, but there is the right object in which to place faith.

        Heb 11:6 also says that believing that God exists must happen before coming to God…. Clearly that belief it while still in the flesh!

        Like

      8. brianwagner writes, “There is no verse that says if they cannot please God they are without faith… certainly not Heb 11:6! It just says faith is an ingredient for pleasing God… ”

        The verse is – “…without faith it is impossible to please God.” What you argue is that faith is necessary but not sufficient to please God. So, the question is whether faith is sufficient to please God.

        I think Paul argues that faith is sufficient.
        “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand;” (Romans 5) plus “…by grace you are saved through faith…” (Ephesians 2)

        “…you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3)

        “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.” (2 Thessalonians 2) Here, sanctification precedes, and is necessary to, faith with faith completing the transaction.

        “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.” (Hebrews 11) Faith pleases God in that the person of faith “believes that God is” and “God rewards those who seek him.”

        Then, “…even demons have it…”

        In James 2, “You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” I don’t think James argued that demons have faith. Context suggests that demons believe but have no faith while the elect both have faith and believe resulting in works {we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2)

        Then, “Heb 11:6 also says that believing that God exists must happen before coming to God…. Clearly that belief it while still in the flesh!”

        So, we have the order – faith then belief. Then, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.”

        From this, a person believes and is immediately, but after, sealed in Christ so that he would then no longer be described as being “in the flesh.” So, I agree, the act of belief comes when the person is still “in the flesh.”

        Like

      9. You’re making me dizzy watching you dance around in this subject Roger!

        First you say it is possible to “believe but have no faith.” Then you say, “we have the order – faith then belief.” Then – “belief comes when the person is still ‘in the flesh.'”

        At least we agree on the last part… which is what I was saying all along about Heb 11:6. Before coming to God one must be “believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek.” So believing is before coming and inspires seeking, while one is still “in the flesh.”

        Faith alone does not please/satisfy God… coming into an everlasting relationship by the salvation He gives to the one expressing faith, while still “in the flesh” is what pleases God!

        Like

      10. Brian writes, “Faith alone does not please/satisfy God… coming into an everlasting relationship by the salvation He gives to the one expressing faith, while still “in the flesh” is what pleases God!” Huh??? Brian sometimes I think you’re making this stuff up as you go.

        Like

      11. brianwagner writes, “First you say it is possible to “believe but have no faith.”

        The demons believe Christ but have no faith. Is this incorrect?

        “Then you say, “we have the order – faith then belief.”

        Those who God is saving are given faith (through the word) that enables them to believe in Christ. Is this correct?

        Then – “belief comes when the person is still ‘in the flesh.’”

        Ephesians 1 has, “In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation–having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,…” So, I am defining the phrase, “in the flesh” to describe a person until the person is sealed (and indwelt) by the Holy Spirit. Do you advocate a different definition?

        Then, “Heb 11:6. Before coming to God one must be “believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek.” So believing is before coming and inspires seeking, while one is still “in the flesh.”

        So, “faith” enables a person to believe in God and seek God. You introduce coming (believing is before coming) and in John 6, you equated “coming” with “believing” so here “coming” is different than “believing.” But, we can identify an order here: faith => believe in Christ => sealed w/HS => come to God => seek God.

        Then, “Faith alone does not please/satisfy God… coming into an everlasting relationship by the salvation He gives to the one expressing faith, while still “in the flesh” is what pleases God!”

        Faith always expresses itself as belief in Christ and results in one being sealed by the HS – and, at this point, no longer in the flesh. I still think the expression of faith by a person is pleasing to God. Still, we seem to agree that a person who has no faith cannot please God. The disagreement is whether a person with faith pleases God when he expresses that faith as belief in Christ – which I think is the same as “coming into an everlasting relationship by the salvation He gives to the one expressing faith (this, perhaps, accomplished when the person is sealed by the HS).”

        Like

      12. Your house of cards falls apart, Roger, because you what the reader to buy into the silly idea that faith is different than believing and even causes it! And I know you are not talking about revelation knowledge as being the meaning of – the faith, but what you really seem to mean is this “faith” is a special irresistible ability to understand and accept the gospel message… and to cause continued belief in Christ.

        Of course you have no Scripture to prove such a unique faith exists that must be, and only will be, planted in some, and that instead faith is ability Scripture confirms all can exercise, that is planted in all, and can be exercised by all when God presents truth to them (Luke 8:12). But such is the necessary theological construct of a house of cards to maintain one’s loyalty to philosophical determinism.

        Like

      13. brianwagner writes, ‘you want the reader to buy into the silly idea that faith is different than believing and even causes it! ”

        The Scriptures give us a specific definition of faith – “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11) that provides the foundation for one to believe.

        Then, we read, “you believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.” (James 2)

        I don’t think we should conclude that demons who believe also have faith.

        Then, “Scripture confirms all can exercise, that is planted in all, and can be exercised by all when God presents truth to them (Luke 8:12).”

        It also has, “those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.” As they believe for a while, it would appear that they lacked something – I think they lacked faith.

        Then, “you have no Scripture to prove such a unique faith exists that must be, and only will be, planted in some,…”

        Hebrews 4 explains this, “…we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard.” This speaks of Israel, but applies to all people. The word is preached to many but only those united by faith are saved. The difference between the lost and the saved is faith.

        Liked by 1 person

      14. The issue, Roger, is never the faith/belief but what the faith is placed in… The issue is having the right object for that faith, and that is what God is looking at. The demons have faith/belief as defined in Heb 11:1 in the fact that God is one… but they don’t have faith/belief in God for His mercy (could be because they know it is not being offered to them… ya think?).

        God convinces each person that they should seek His mercy. It is being offered to them. It’s not an irresistible offer, but it is something to believe/have faith in that will be rewarded if the faith, which is there to be exercised, is exercised in that offer when it is made! Praise His Name!

        Like

      15. brianwagner writes, “The issue is having the right object for that faith,…”

        That works for me. The author of Hebrews does not appear to have known this judging from Hebrews 11.

        Then, “God convinces each person that they should seek His mercy.”

        So say the Universalists. I think your position is that God is able to convince some people to seek His mercy. Of course, that is the Calvinist position.

        Then, “It’s not an irresistible offer,…”

        If not irresistible, then not convincing.

        Like

      16. So says Roger… but the evidence of free will to decide against being effectively enabled to seek or against placing faith in what you are offered as true is obvious.

        Hey Roger… I have a question for you. Do you believe Adam ever had as his strongest desire, the desire to obey God’s command and that he had to freely choose what was a weaker desire or a new desire to be stronger than his desire for obedience? Or did he always have a selfish desire that was stronger than his desire to obey which was created in him by God?

        Like

      17. We have absolutely no way of knowing the answer to your question because Adam’s will before the fall is a mystery to us. However, we know that God created him with the ability to choose uninhibited and not influenced by a fallen nature. Beyond this, the Bible is silent!

        Like

      18. Troy writes:
        “We have absolutely no way of knowing the answer to your question because Adam’s will before the fall is a mystery to us. However, we know that God created him with the ability to choose uninhibited and not influenced by a fallen nature. Beyond this, the Bible is silent!”

        But where the bible is silent, Calvin is not silent – he abandons scriptures blueprint and creates his own.

        According to Calvin:
        (1) Adam’s disobedient choice was brought about by the -quote “secret predestination of god”.
        And
        (2) Adam disobeyed because he did not have – quote “continence of perseverance”.

        Obviously it follows that for Calvin, god designed Adam without “continence of perseverance”.
        Thus it obviously follows – Calvin’s deity designed Adam to disobey.
        And since Calvin’s deity -quote “rendered certain” Adam’s disobedience would come to pass.
        And it obviously follows that Calvin’s deity decreed Adam’s obedience as Adam’s unavoidable fate – else it would not have come to pass.

        Now the Calvinist – using a dishonest language trick – will say “god decreed Adam free to obey or disobey”.
        The truth the Calvinist hides is that in Calvinism Adam was NOT FREE to do anything other than what God -quote “rendered certain”.

        Adam’s post-fall or pre-fall condition in all of this, is simply a red herring designed as a deliberate diversion of attention.

        Like

      19. Everything you just stated is destroyed by the fact that God KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY created Adam with a free will to choose evil and KNEW Adam would choose to do evil. Adam freely chose to rebel and God knew he would do it. GOD CREATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ENSURED THE FALL!! This alone proves Calvin’s point to be accurate!!

        Like

      20. John Calvin asserts (1) Adam’s fall was brought about by the -quote “secret predestination of god” and (2) God designed Adam without -quote “continency of perseverance”.

        Troy responds:
        “Everything you just stated is destroyed by the fact that God KNOWINGLY and DELIBERATELY created Adam with a free will to choose evil and KNEW Adam would choose to do evil. Adam freely chose to rebel and God knew he would do it. GOD CREATED THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ENSURED THE FALL!! This alone proves Calvin’s point to be accurate!!”

        Troy, we are well versed in the full-spectrum of Calvinism’s dishonest language tricks.

        (1) god created Adam with a free will to choose evil
        Yes but not in such a way that Adam was free to do anything other than what God -quote “rendered certain” Adam do – making Adam’s disobedience Adam’s unavoidable fate.

        (2) God knew Adam would choose evil
        Yes but what you hide is that in Calvinism the only way God can foreknew Adam’s sin as “certain” is for god to decree Adam’s sin as “certain”. So it follows – Calvin’s god knew Adam would choose evil simply because Calvin’s god decreed Adam to choose evil and gave Adam no alternative possibility.

        SOT101 readers are savvy enough to know that in Theological Determinism “Alternative Possibilities” exist only as human illusions.
        So you’ve given us a wonderful example of how the Calvinist gets ensnared by his own system’s illusions.
        As it is declared in Proverbs: “Deceivers are ensnared by their own devices”

        (3) God created the circumstances that ensured Adam would fall
        Yes, as R.C. Sproul states – “if there is one maverick molecule in the universe god is not sovereign”

        Calvinist half-truths don’t have the power to destroy the whole truth.

        Like

      21. None of what you just said disproves my assertion that God created Adam knowing that Adam would freely choose to rebel against Him. This is a FACT!!

        Like

      22. Troy writes “None of what you just said disproves my assertion that God created Adam knowing that Adam would freely choose to rebel against Him. This is a FACT!!”

        Here the dishonest Calvinist is hoping he can simply bluff his way out of the corner he is painted in using one of Calvinism’s dishonest language tricks.

        For the SOT101 reader:
        A foundational proposition in Calvinism is that the only way Calvin’s god can KNOW Adam’s disobedience as “certain” – is that Calvin’s god decrees Adam’s disobedience as “certain”. In Calvinism’s language “rendered certain” by god.

        And in Theological Determinism “Alternate Possibilities” exist only as human illusions.

        So again this is an excellent example of how the Calvinist gets fooled/ensnared by his own system’s illusions.

        Makes us all just want to run out right now and be a double-think Calvinist!! 😀

        Like

      23. Brian writes, “Or did he always have a selfish desire that was stronger than his desire to obey which was created in him by God?”
        When you ask questions like this Brian, you’re unwittingly questioning God Himself because post Fall every man/woman is created having a sinful nature that desires to rebel against his/her Creator. You are thus blaming your Creator for creating you with this fallen nature that is in bondage to sin, has sinful desires and wants nothing to do with God. Our sinful desires stem from a fallen nature that God has created us with and you’re blaming God for that. Very dangerous!!

        Like

      24. So let’s see… I guess I should say – “Thank you God for creating me with a fallen nature from which my sinful desires stem!” hmmm… not quite there yet! 😉 And neither do I blame Him for my sinful nature or my sin that I freely commit from it.

        I do however praise Him for His mercy to me and to everyone else to draw us all to an opportunity to freely seek and find Him!

        Like

      25. God created you with a sinful nature that lusts after sin Brian. Now the question is..are you going to continue to deny this truth and believe a lie to appease your sinful nature or are you going to humble yourself and yield to ALL that the Bible teaches?

        Like

      26. Troy writes: “God created you with a sinful nature that lusts after sin Brian.”

        A CONCESSION!
        Let the record show that on this date Troy acknowledges – in Calvinism god creates people with a -quote “sinful nature that lusts after sin”.

        This is an example of how Calvinists are consistent with Calvin when they want to be. :-]

        Like

      27. I’m consistent with what Scripture teaches. I’m NOT a Calvinist sir!! Please stop misrepresenting me and thank you!!

        Like

      28. Troy writes “I’m consistent with what Scripture teaches. I’m NOT a Calvinist sir!! Please stop misrepresenting me and thank you!!”

        WHAT???

        You say AMEN to 100% of what the other double-speak Calvinist posts.
        And rely upon many of Calvinism’s dishonest language tricks.
        If that’s not Calvinism then its at least some hybrid of it. 🙂

        Oh wait – maybe its that you don’t want to be “LABELED” a Calvinist?

        Well – I guess if that’s it – it does follow the typical Calvinist pattern of shifting semantic weights and hiding behind camouflages.
        I guess I can understand the issue.
        Maybe the Lord is working to deliver you out of it – on the inside – and you don’t know it yet.

        Like

      29. I’m a Bible-believing Christian and don’t follow Calvin. Learn from this passage and heed its teaching sir:
        “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.”‭‭ -1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:12-15‬ ‭

        Like

      30. Troy writes
        “I’m a Bible-believing Christian and don’t follow Calvin. Learn from this passage and heed its teaching sir”

        Well then – that puts you in the same boat with every other “Bible-believing” Christian (if its REALLY true). 😉

        But the fruits of a disciple of John Calvin are easy to recognize.
        So I think we’re savvy enough to get the picture.

        Here’s a good verse in return:

        No one can serve two masters.
        When pressed he will cleave to one and in inadvertently compromise loyalty to the other.
        Or He will ardently defend one, and in so doing betray the other.

        Like

      31. br.d writes, “Let the record show that on this date Troy acknowledges – in Calvinism god creates people with a -quote “sinful nature that lusts after sin”.”

        This is what Calvin called the “horrible decree” – God’s decree that Adam’s children would inherit the corruption caused by his sin. To remedy this situation, Jesus tells us in John 3 that a person must be born again.

        Like

      32. br.d writes, “Let the record show that on this date Troy acknowledges – in Calvinism god creates people with a -quote “sinful nature that lusts after sin”.”

        rhutchin responds
        “This is what Calvin called the “horrible decree” – God’s decree that Adam’s children would inherit the corruption caused by his sin. To remedy this situation, Jesus tells us in John 3 that a person must be born again.”

        (1) Calvin’s “imagined” immutable decrees (for Calvin) apply to – quote “all things which come to pass”.
        (2) Yes – Calvin’s god “rendered certain” Adam’s children inherent Adam’s sin – after he “rendered certain” Adam’s sin.

        In Calvinism the supreme pyromaniac sets all houses in the city on fire.
        So he can come to the rescue and save a one or two “special” ones.

        Makes us all want to run out right now and embrace Calvinism’s “superior” theology!!! 😛

        Like

      33. brianwagner writes, “I guess I should say – “Thank you God for creating me with a fallen nature from which my sinful desires stem!””

        “…in everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” (1 Thessalonians 5)
        “…“To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, For Thou hast given me wisdom and power;” (Daniel 2)
        “O LORD, Thou art my God; I will exalt Thee, I will give thanks to Thy name; For Thou hast worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.” (Isaiah 25)

        “I do however [give thanks to God and] praise Him for His mercy to me and to everyone else to draw us all to an opportunity to freely seek and find Him!”

        Liked by 1 person

      34. Good question!
        Calvin answers this very question by stating -quote “Adam did not have continence of perseverance”.

        But notice how this answer is a red herring.
        A dishonest deliberate diversion of attention in order to camouflage those “horrible” immutable decrees – controlling Adam’s every neurological impulse – making his disobedient choice his unavoidable fate.

        That is Calvin’s whacky world of double-think!

        Since scripture states God saying “it is good”, then it follows for Calvin that god designed Adam to disobey.

        And this is exactly what Calvin asserts: Adam’s fall was brought about by the -quote “secret predestination of god”.

        Secret from who?
        Secret from Adam – obviously!
        So Calvin’s deity commands Adam to obey – while deceiving Adam into believing he wills Adam’s obedience – while he secretly predestines the opposite through a supernatural force beyond Adam’s control. Then Calvin’s deity blames Adam for doing exactly what he predestined Adam to do.

        A double-think theology must have a double-think god! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      35. Hey BrD. Here is a noxious pre-Calvinist determinist quote to add to your files – “He makes the angel and man transgressors” – Zwingli, On the Providence of God, chapter 5, The Latin Works and Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, vol 2, p.176.

        If Adam had as his strongest desire at one time to obey God’s command, then free-will is confirmed as the reason another weaker or new desire is chosen to replace that strongest desire… or else God “made Adam to become a transgressor”. There is no other alternative.

        And if free-will is able to replace the strongest desire with a weaker or new one, then God is certainly able to bring one of Adam’s children to the place where their will is enabled to do the same, but not irresistibly.

        Like

      36. Wonderful thoughts Brian!!

        And thanks for that quote – yes I will add it to my library :-]

        Since this is Zwingly, doesn’t it seem to you that Christianity, in early time of the Reformation, is in the process of “coming out of her”?
        I see Luther and Calvin as believers who had absolutely no idea how much Gnosticism and NeoPlatonism (via Augustine) had perverted the church and turned it into a “cage of unclean birds”.

        Like

      37. Yes… that’s why I’m a Hubmaier fan. He was just as educated and as early as Luther and Zwingli but went with the authority of Scripture only, and rejected infant baptism and determinism.

        Zwingli even had him tortured when he came to him for refuge from the RC, because he rejected infant baptism.

        Like

      38. Zwingli even had him [Hubmaier] tortured when he came to him for refuge from the RC, because he rejected infant baptism.

        Just like Calvin had Michael Servetus tortured/murdered when Servetus came into Geneva assuming safety from Catholic head-hunters.

        By their fruits you shall know them.

        Liked by 1 person

      39. Troy write ““If…if…if…if” It’s all conjecture that doesn’t lead to truth!”

        Calvinism’s language is so heavily reliant upon misleading dishonesties and word games.
        And then they want to define things that “don’t lead to truth”.

        Calvinists are – if nothing else – wonderful entertainment! 😉

        Like

      40. brianwagner writes, “if free-will is able to replace the strongest desire with a weaker or new one, then God is certainly able to bring one of Adam’s children to the place where their will is enabled to do the same, but not irresistibly.”

        A free will does not replace a strong desire with a weaker one – a stronger desire supplants existing desires. In the account of Adam, only one factor has changed – Eve has eaten the fruit and now she must die. Adam is confronted with both Eve’s sin and her punishment. This is the only factor that could influence his decision when Eve offers him the fruit. Had Eve not eaten the fruit but still offered Adam the fruit, Adam would easily have said, No.

        Like

      41. br.d writes, “it follows for Calvin that god designed Adam to disobey.”

        God designed Adam with a freedom of will by which he could choose to disobey if he so desired.

        Then, “Adam’s fall was brought about by the -quote “secret predestination of god”.”

        God is omniscient knowing that Adam would sin unless God protected him. God predestined to let Adam decide without interference from Him – He predestined not to protect Adam from himself.

        Like

      42. br.d writes, “it follows for Calvin that god designed Adam to disobey.”

        Rhutchin responds with a dishonest language trick:
        “God designed Adam with a freedom of will by which he could choose to disobey if he so desired.”

        Yes, but not in such a way that Adam was free to do anything other than what god -quote “rendered certain” Adam do – making Adam’s disobedient desire his unavoidable fate.

        John Calvin: Adam’s fall was brought about by the -quote “secret predestination of god”.

        Rhutchin responds with another dishonest language trick:
        “God is omniscient knowing that Adam would sin unless God protected him.”

        Yes but what you deceptively hide is that in Calvinism, the only way god can Foreknow Adam’s disobedience as “certain”, is for God to decree Adam’s disobedience as “certain”. In Calvinist language god “rendered” it certain. Thus it follows, protecting Adam was not in god’s -quote “secret predestination”

        Rhutchin also writes
        “God predestined to let Adam decide without interference from Him – He predestined not to protect Adam from himself.”

        Yes but what you hide is that Calvin states that god created Adam without -quote “continency of perseverance”
        Again it follows, protecting Adam was not within god’s -quote “secret predestination”
        That which god kept “SECRET” from Adam.

        Thus it follows that Calvinism’s god:
        (1) Commanded Adam to obey
        (2) Deceived Adam into believing he “willed” Adam’s obedience
        (3) Kept his predestination a secret from Adam
        (4) “Rendered Certain” Adam’s disobedience – not allowing Adam any “Alternative Possibility”.
        (5) Then Calvin’s god blamed Adam for doing the very thing that Calvin’s god “rendered certain”

        Calvinist half-truths are such a joke! 😀

        Like

      43. br.d. writes, “Thus it follows that Calvinism’s god:
        (1) Commanded Adam to obey
        (2) Deceived Adam into believing he “willed” Adam’s obedience
        (3) Kept his predestination a secret from Adam
        (4) “Rendered Certain” Adam’s disobedience – not allowing Adam any “Alternative Possibility”.
        (5) Then Calvin’s god blamed Adam for doing the very thing that Calvin’s god “rendered certain”

        Actually, it is this:
        (1) Commanded Adam to obey
        (2) Gave Adam freedom to choose whether to eat the fruit.
        (3) Kept his predestination knowledge a secret from Adam
        (4) “Rendered Certain” Adam’s disobedience – not allowing Adam any “Alternative Possibility” by not interfering in Adam’s decision.
        (5) Then Calvin’s God judged Adam for disobeying the command not to eat the fruit; Adam’s disobedience was “rendered certain” when God decreed not to interfere to prevent Adam eating the fruit.

        Like

      44. br.d. writes, “Thus it follows that Calvinism’s god:
        (1) Commanded Adam to obey
        (2) Deceived Adam into believing he “willed” Adam’s obedience
        (3) Kept his predestination a secret from Adam
        (4) “Rendered Certain” Adam’s disobedience – not allowing Adam any “Alternative Possibility”.
        (5) Then Calvin’s god blamed Adam for doing the very thing that Calvin’s god “rendered certain”

        rhutchin responds – Actually, it is this:
        (1) Commanded Adam to obey
        Sure while holding his -quote “secret predestination” from Adam that he deceptively willed Adam’s fall

        (2) Gave Adam freedom to choose whether to eat the fruit.
        Sure – but in such a way that he “rendered certain” Adam’s disobedience making it Adam’s “secret predestined” fate.

        (3) Kept his predestination knowledge a secret from Adam
        Yup – that’s the element of dishonesty
        Easy to see here – god made man in his image and Calvin wanted to return the favor!

        (4) “Rendered Certain” Adam’s disobedience – not allowing Adam any “Alternative Possibility” by not interfering in Adam’s decision.

        “Rendering Certain” = “Not Interfering” – That’s is supposed to be a “Superior” belief system!!
        AUDIENCE LAUGHING 😛

        (5) Then Calvin’s God judged Adam for disobeying the command not to eat the fruit;
        Sure – after he “rendered certain” Adam was “secretly predestined” to do the very thing he commanded Adam not to.
        Now that’s a “Superior” deity!?!?

        Great examples of how Calvinist dishonest half-truths and double-speak works.

        Thanks rhutchin – please keep-em coming! :-]

        Like

      45. brianwagner writes, “but the evidence of free will to decide against being effectively enabled to seek or against placing faith in what you are offered as true is obvious.”

        No one is denying that. The Calvinist says that a person is not equally disposed to choosing one way or the other but is heavily biased in one direction by God’s influences on the person (e.g., opening the heart of Lydia). Under God’s influence, there is no doubt as to the final outcome.

        “Do you believe Adam ever had as his strongest desire, the desire to obey God’s command and that he had to freely choose what was a weaker desire or a new desire to be stronger than his desire for obedience? Or did he always have a selfish desire that was stronger than his desire to obey which was created in him by God?”

        I think that Adam’s choice to eat the fruit tells us that his desire for Eve exceeded his desire for God – he made Eve an idol. That would have been a selfish desire. It is like David’s sin, “Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. ‘I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! ‘Why have you despised the word of the LORD by doing evil in His sight?” Contrast this with Joseph, ““There is no one greater in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great evil, and sin against God?”

        Like

      46. Roger… you didn’t answer my question… why? Did Adam freely choose to replace what once was a greater desire… that is to obey God with a lesser or new desire… that is to obey the voice of his wife?

        We can talk about the past fall freedom of the will to replace a greater desire with a lesser or new one later.

        Like

      47. brianwagner writes, “Did Adam freely choose to replace what once was a greater desire… that is to obey God with a lesser or new desire… that is to obey the voice of his wife?”

        We don’t necessarily choose our desires and the the strength of those desires tend to depend on the interaction with other desires. Desires pretty much just happen and we deal with them. When God made Eve and presented her to Adam, Adam’s desires changed – he now had a desire for Eve (presumably). When Eve ate the fruit, that affected another change in Adam’s desires. Given that Adam ate the fruit when offered by Eve, we conclude that eating the fruit was his strongest desire at that moment. Jonathan Edwards goes into considerable detail on this in his paper on free will. If we could ask Adam why he ate the fruit, he would likely say, “It’s complicated.”

        Liked by 1 person

      48. 😂 It’s only complicated if somehow desires become causal and there is no way to rationally freely choose between strong desires or even choose a weaker desire that was once stronger in the midst of newer strong desires. It is actually by those free choices, including choosing which thoughts on which to meditate that strengthen or weaken those desires. It is the free will that is the causal force… not the contributing stimuli from outside that introduce new information or spawn new desires.

        One could argue that determinism introduces the premiere excuse for never truly acknowledging one’s personal responsibility for sin. It seems easier to defend the premise that the belief in true counter-causal freedom is necessary to make true humility and repentance possible… as well as a love relationship!

        Like

      49. brianwagner writes, ” It is actually by those free choices, including choosing which thoughts on which to meditate that strengthen or weaken those desires. It is the free will that is the causal force… not the contributing stimuli from outside that introduce new information or spawn new desires.”

        You’ve been reading Edwards, haven’t you? Of course, we should not discount the internal influence of a corrupt nature and the deadness of the spirit (and estrangement of the person from God). Paul writes of the impacts of this in his letters.

        Then, “One could argue that determinism introduces the premiere excuse for never truly acknowledging one’s personal responsibility for sin.”

        Yeah, somehow God owes us and should help us even when we don’t ask God for help and treat Him like dirt.

        Then, “It seems easier to defend the premise that the belief in true counter-causal freedom is necessary to make true humility and repentance possible… as well as a love relationship!.”

        As long as we remember that counter-causal freedom does not require that all options are not in play nor are those options under consideration equally desirable. Then, the unsaved do not love God but do have a special love for themselves. God must instill love within the person.

        Like

      50. Your loyalty, Roger, to determinism that makes you define God is such a un-Christlike way is staggering! For you, He designed Adam to sin without grace to do any different. He designed that sin to corrupt all of Adam’s progeny with no plan to help any of them, but a token, with His grace, knowing all He chose not to help will suffer damnation torment forever! That is not the picture Christ gives in the Gospels of the Father! I reject the description Calvinism has made of God so that it can remain loyal to philosophical determinism!

        Like

      51. Brian writes, “I reject the description Calvinism has made of God so that it can remain loyal to philosophical determinism!”
        You’re not rejecting Calvinism my friend. You’re rejecting your Creator and His decree. Make no mistake about it!

        Like

      52. Ps 145:8-9 The LORD is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy. The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.

        Like

      53. “God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.”
        ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭7:11‬ ‭

        “The Lord is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous.”
        ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭15:29‬ ‭

        “The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just‭‭” -Proverbs‬ ‭3:33‬ ‭

        The same God who wrote Psalm 145:8,9 also wrote the above verses. So let’s see if you’re going to harmonize these passages or pit them against each other Brian.

        Like

      54. brianwagner writes, “He designed Adam to sin without grace to do any different.”

        We know that God did not intervene to help Adam when He could have done so. We read that Adam and Eve heard the sound of the Lord walking, so this was something they had known before. God was always there for Adam to call upon as He is for us. Yet, God decreed that Adam have the freedom to choose. Adam was not hindered by a corrupt nature as we are. God gave Adam all the advantages (graces) he needed to obey God, and Adam still sinned. I am confident that neither you nor I would have eaten the fruit under those same circumstances.

        Then, “He designed that sin to corrupt all of Adam’s progeny with no plan to help any of them,…”

        In Ephesians 3, Paul writes of “…the eternal purpose which God purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:” I think God had a plan. Under than plan, God passed over the gentiles during the OT period, but then Paul writes, “…when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:”

        Then, “I reject the description Calvinism has made of God so that it can remain loyal to philosophical determinism!”

        But even you cannot deny the Scriptures as Ephesians 3 which speaks of the gentiles being ignored by God.. In Romans 11, Paul writes, “In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice.” God could save all, but determined to save a remnant. Is Romans 11 a determinist philosophy in your mind?

        Like

      55. The Gentiles were never ignored by God in the OT! You may be surprised, Roger, at who you will meet in heaven from those generations and nations who called out to God for mercy and He saved.

        Like

      56. Brian writes, “The Gentiles were never ignored by God in the OT!” Brian how are we to take you seriously when you make crazy assertions such as this one. The Gentiles were almost non-existent in terms of God’s interaction with them. The Gentiles in the OT were often objects of God’s anger and wrath (i.e Amorites, Hitites, Babylonians, etc).

        Like

      57. Maybe Troy you should read Job 33:14-33, John 1:4-13, Acts 17:26-27, Rom 1, 2, 10:18, and 11:32 to start with. Then read the whole OT and count how many Gentiles were converted to faith in God… and say to yourself… and these are just the ones we know about!

        Your lack of hopeful mercy toward the lost is astounding… but it is one of the harmful effects of believing the false doctrine of determinism. I’ll bet you probably also have a struggle being motivated to pray with faith that your talking to God about things makes any real difference.

        Like

      58. God’s interaction with OT Gentiles is minimal and usually entails God’s judgement. The verses you’ve cited only show how God deals with mankind IN GENERAL; not just God’s interaction with Gentiles. I’m telling you Brian that your interpretation of Scripture is convoluted and oftentimes does not support your premise.

        Like

      59. You really should consider, Troy, your lack of hopeful mercy.
        Rev 7:9-10 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

        Ps 66:4 All the earth worships you
        and sings praises to you;
        they sing praises to your name.”

        Ps 67:1-3 May God be gracious to us and bless us
        and make his face to shine upon us, Selah
        that your way may be known on earth,
        your saving power among all nations.
        Let the peoples praise you, O God;
        let all the peoples praise you!

        Like

      60. Once again your conflating concepts sir. While it is true that God’s salvation plan is predominantly for Gentiles, this does not prove your original premise about how God dealt with Gentiles in the OT.

        Like

      61. Praise the Lord for the clarity of His Word that reveals His merciful character for all who are born in His image!

        Like

      62. Brian writes, “…His Word that reveals His merciful character for all who are born in His image!
        This statement too is erroneous for He does NOT reveal His merciful character to ALL who are born in His image. Like I’ve said on many occasions..Brian where do you get this stuff from brother??!!!!

        Like

      63. Ps 145:8-9 The LORD is gracious and full of compassion, Slow to anger and great in mercy. The LORD is good to all, And His tender mercies are over all His works.

        Like

      64. Yes I concede that His merciful character is seen as He gives mercy to the Gentiles. However, the mercy of Salvation is only reserved for elect Gentiles and Jews.

        Like

      65. Troy writes
        “God’s salvation plan is predominantly for Gentiles”

        Sure looks like Calvinism’s replacement theology.

        Now someone who is a -quote “serious student of the bible”, would be able provide scripture that ***EXPLICITLY*** states god’s salvation plan is predominantly for the gentiles. Would you be so kind?

        Like

      66. br.d writes, “Now someone who is a -quote “serious student of the bible”, would be able provide scripture that ***EXPLICITLY*** states god’s salvation plan is predominantly for the gentiles.”

        Paul writes in Romans 11–
        “I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be!…God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew….there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God’s gracious choice. …That which Israel is seeking for, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.”

        In Matthew 12, “17* This was to fulfil what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: “Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the [gentiles]. He will not quarrel or cry out; no-one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smouldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the [gentiles] will put their hope.”

        Only a remnant of Israel is said to be saved while the gospel was sent to the gentiles through Paul. Given that there are only millions of Jews but billions of gentiles, Troy is correct to conclude that God’s salvation plan is predominantly for the gentiles. Christ died so that gentiles could be saved, whereas salvation was already available to the Jew through the law.

        Like

      67. And that is supposed to be exegesis?
        Where the verse ***EXPLICITLY*** states god’s salvation plan is predominantly for the gentiles?

        “But by their [jews] transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles”
        and
        ” In his name the gentiles will put their hope.”

        These verses say nothing more than god is (“grafting in” as Paul describes it) gentiles – into the tree – and thus his salvation plan.

        People can be convinced to see just about anything in the data of scripture.
        Proves my point!!

        The way you create a Calvinist is to:
        1) Condition the mind to embrace doctrines as unquestionable truth.
        2) That mind is then conditioned to see what it has been influenced to see within in the data of scripture.

        Its how Catholics see the face of Mary in an ink-blot or a cloud.
        Its called confirmation bias. :-]

        Like

      68. I will provide Scripture for you sir. But before I do, are you you saying that God’s salvation plan is predominantly for the Jews??

        Like

      69. Nope.
        I don’t believe the scripture says either.
        And I’m not racially slanted either way.

        I’m afraid the case you need to make, is a scripture that ***EXPLICITLY*** states that god is racially biased.
        And his salvation plan reflects that racial slant.
        I think that is imposing a human racial bias upon god – (i.e., making one’s god in one’s image).

        Now it is reasonable to understand that since the Jewish race represents .2% of the world’s population, the preponderance of people being saved is going to reflect that statistic. Any normal person would see that.

        And the scripture does speak of “the time of the gentiles”, in reference to a time-period prior to which the Jewish people will fully embrace Jesus as their Messiah (as some scholars hold).

        But that’s not the same thing as saying god’s plan is racially slanted.

        Like

      70. Brother salvation has absolutely NOTHING to do with race for God is no respecter of persons. Salvation is about God’s choice to save a people (both Jew and Gentile) for His own purposes.

        Like

      71. For me god is not a respecter of persons and is not focused on earthly carnal things – sects of the human race, whether Jew or Gentile – he doesn’t pick favorites like carnal humans do.

        Like

      72. Br.d brother now I’m thinking you’re just being contrary just for contrary sake. Are we seeking truth or just seeking to argue? A Gentile is anyone who is a non-Jew brother.

        Like

      73. Simply – the fact that “gentile” is (in scripture), a categorical term, in which all races (except that of the Jewish race) are within – is tangential to the assertion that god’s salvation plan is race focused. But you’ve already stated that you don’t embrace the idea that god’s salvation plan is race focused – so no need to reiterate that.

        Replacement theology is an off-shoot of a very long tradition of Catholic anti-antisemitism – which has long manifested the characteristic traits of ‘race’ bias. And since Calvin is categorized as a Catholic with a small “c” the origin of that Catholic doctrine is easy to trace.

        Like

      74. brianwagner writes, “You really should consider, Troy, your lack of hopeful mercy.”

        Maybe Troy is just being pragmatic. God destroyed the world in the time of Noah because, ” LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” In Judges 17 and 21, we read “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes,” and these are the people who know God – or should know Him. In the days of Kings and Chronicles, the rejection of God is documented again and again – and this by the Jews. Are we to believe the non-Jews were more spiritual?? Sennacherib king of Assyria said to Hezekiah in 2 Chronicles 32, “Do you not know what I and my fathers have done to all the peoples of the lands? Were the gods of the nations of the lands able at all to deliver their land from my hand? ‘Who was there among all the gods of those nations which my fathers utterly destroyed who could deliver his people out of my hand, that your God should be able to deliver you from my hand?” The implication – all the other nations served their gods but not Jehovah. I think Troy’s lack of hopeful mercy is well deserved. Nonetheless, neither Troy nor I would object if God ended up saving everyone.

        Like

      75. So God destroyed the antediluvian society because He “saw” their wickedness. Was that a pre-creation “saw” before their wills were even created to choose such wickedness, or was that a more timely “saw” after having permitted them to going deep into sin. Then He even gave them the opportunity to repent through Noah’s preaching after that. Why did Noah preach anyway? Do you think maybe the seed of his message might have brought fruit of many calling out for salvation mercy when the floods started rising?

        And then you used the phrase “or should know Him”… when that is not really a part of your theology, Roger, for to you God causes all who should know Him to know Him, right? No, I don’t think Troy’s lack of hopeful mercy is deserved, because nations are judged differently than individuals and even in the judgment of the nation there is often a renewed opportunity for the individual to receive mercy if he humbly repents and trusts God’s mercy.

        Like

      76. brianwagenr writes, “So God destroyed the antediluvian society because He “saw” their wickedness. Was that a pre-creation “saw” before their wills were even created to choose such wickedness, or was that a more timely “saw” after having permitted them to going deep into sin.”

        By using, “saw,” the author tells us that God personally witnessed the degradation of the people. Noah was also a witness to this, so the two witness threshhold was met (not that God needs a verifying witness). The judgment was warranted. Of course, God knew these events in eternity past, for He had decreed not to restrain the people in their pursuit of evil because it was His intent to destroy them and provide an example for those who would live afterwards.

        Then, “Then He even gave them the opportunity to repent through Noah’s preaching after that. Why did Noah preach anyway? Do you think maybe the seed of his message might have brought fruit of many calling out for salvation mercy when the floods started rising?”

        But without the intervention of the Holy Spirit on behalf of the people, none could be saved – even as the flood waters came. Noah’s preaching was a testimony against them depriving them any excuse when they stood before God to be judged.

        Then, “And then you used the phrase “or should know Him”… when that is not really a part of your theology,”

        Israel had specific advantages (Romans 9) as well as the witness of creation (Romans 1). Even though depraved, the logical course of action would have been to seek God – as you even advocate (but depraved people behave illogically in spiritual matters). Again, we see the importance of the Holy Spirit to bring people to Christ. Consequently, we who are believers beseech God for the lives of the lost knowing that our efforts will be ineffective without God’s involvement.

        Like

      77. brianwagner writes, “Then read the whole OT and count how many Gentiles were converted to faith in God… and say to yourself… and these are just the ones we know about! ”

        Yet Paul writes, “To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God, who created all things; in order that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.” What is the mystery “mystery which for ages has been hidden in God”? Perhaps that which Paul wrote immediately before, “when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,…” Acts 11 – “Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God…when they heard this, they quieted down, and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” This points to the salvation of the gentiles being a surprise to the Jews. I read nothing in the OT to indicate that the Jews were actively reaching out to the gentiles to tell them about God.

        You offer only Job to support your contention. All the NT references point to the mystery which had been hid. Job has, “Behold, God does all these oftentimes with men,To bring back his soul from the pit, That he may be enlightened with the light of life.” This is similar to Romans 1, where we are also told that men rejected God’s advances – so why shouldn’t we think the same outcome in Job. This is why you have to say “may be” and not “will be.”

        Like

      78. The mystery was “the church” being one body of Jew and Gentile without being under the Mosaic Covenant. The teachings of God’s blessings being intended for all the nations was certainly in the OT, and was primarily viewed in those Scriptures as only available through Gentiles joining Israel… but there were enough verses and examples to demonstrate even to Israel (like Job 33:14-30, Jonah, etc) that God was working throughout the world, even if the record of working did not make it into many OT Scripture.

        Like

      79. brianwagner writes, “You may be surprised, Roger, at who you will meet in heaven from those generations and nations who called out to God for mercy and He saved.”

        Why didn’t you say, “You will be surprised,…” Why waffle?

        Like

      80. Think harder, Roger… and you can answer why I said – “may”! Remember… I am not a prophet, and that I believe in possibilities for changes in the future which “may” include you coming to believe the truths about God’s mercy as I do! 😉 If that happens… you may not be surprised at all the Gentiles from OT times that are in heaven when you get there!

        Like

      81. We don’t necessarily choose our desires and the the strength of those desires tend to depend on the interaction with other desires.

        Brian, did you notice rhutchin in this response is basically repeating your original question after initially attempting to dance around it?
        I think you had it right when you identified his “dancing boxer” routine.

        SO FUNNY!!! 😀

        Liked by 1 person

      82. A (those in the flesh) then B (cannot please God)
        B (cannot please God) then C (without faith)
        Therefore, A (those in the flesh) then C (without faith)

        Brian is right this is the fallacy of excluded middle:
        Logic has never been a good subject for you rhutchin.

        Like

  12. Rhutchin writes….

    “In Romans 8 and Hebrews 11 there are two statements of truth.

    1. ‘…those who are in the flesh cannot please God.’ – If A (those in the flesh) then B (cannot please God)

    2. ‘…without faith it is impossible to please God.’ – If B (cannot please God) then C (without faith)

    The conclusion can be drawn, A (to be in the flesh) is C (to be without faith)”

    What a perfect example of Calvinist eisegesis.

    In Romans 8 and Hebrews 11 there are two “distinct” statements of truth.

    1. “….those in the flesh cannot please God” by keeping the law. (A)

    2. “….without faith it is impossible to please God”. (B)

    Conclusion. Fallen man cannot please God by keeping His laws (A), but fallen man can please God thru faith (B).

    Galatians 2:16…
    ….knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law (A) but by faith in Jesus Christ (B), even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ (B) and not by the works of the law (A); for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified (A).

    Galatians 3:2….
    This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law (A), or by the hearing of faith (B)?

    Galatians 3:11….
    But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God (A) is evident, for “the just shall live by faith (B).”

    Romans 3:27-28….Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works (A)? No, but by the law of faith (B). Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith (B) apart from the deeds of the law (A).

    All this scriptural evidence and, yet, rhutchin will only continue to harden his heart.

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

    Like

    1. For further clarification, let me add…..

      1 Corinthians 1:21….
      In God’s wisdom, he determined that the world wouldn’t come to know him through its wisdom. Instead, God was pleased to save those who believe (B) through the foolishness of preaching.

      Praise God!

      Like

      1. “1 Corinthians 1:21….
        In God’s wisdom, he determined that the world wouldn’t come to know him through its wisdom. Instead, God was pleased to save those who believe (B) through the foolishness of preaching.”

        Thus, we add to the conclusion: “Fallen man cannot keep the law, so he cannot please God (A), fallen man can only please God thru faith (B) and God gives faith to whom He chooses to show mercy and withholds faith from those He chooses to harden and God does this through the foolishness of preaching.”

        Like

    2. phillip writes, “Conclusion. Fallen man cannot please God by keeping His laws (A), but fallen man can please God thru faith (B).”

      The conclusion is: “Fallen man cannot keep the law, so he cannot please God (A), fallen man can only please God thru faith (B) and God gives faith to whom He chooses to show mercy and withholds faith from those He chooses to harden.”

      This is consistent with the verses you noted and more accurate.

      Like

      1. The opinion of someone who also believes the following is “accurate”…

        Alive (but not living)…..Look…..Live.

        Like

      2. phillip writes, “The opinion of someone who also believes the following is “accurate”…
        Alive (but not living)…..Look…..Live.”

        It’s a process. Birth gives life.

        Like

      3. Birth (defined): the start of life; brought into life

        Live (defined): to be alive

        Alive (defined): living, not dead

        The scriptures say….

        Look…..Live (to be alive = living, not dead).

        Rhutchin’s says….

        Made “alive” together with Christ …..Look…..Live (to be alive = living, not dead).

        Absolutely hilarious!

        Like

      4. phillip writes, “Absolutely hilarious!”

        Paul says, “…when we were dead in our transgressions, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).” (Ephesians 2) and again, “you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with Christ). If you understand “made alive” to mean salvation (which you seem to do), then we need go no further; God clearly saves a person with any response from the person following after salvation. I proposed that “made alive” did not mean salvation but had reference to birth and you found that hilarious, so you clearly reject that understanding. Did you have a third way of understanding the action, “made alive”?

        Like

  13. UNDERSTANDING THE **MECHANICAL** WORLD OF CALVINISM:

    Westminster Confession (1646)
    -quote
    “If everything that happens does so because God has ordained it, then it follows that not only has God ordained the eternal suffering of most of those he created, but in the present world God has:

    Through the **MECHANICS** of second causes – CHOREOGRAPHED DOWN TO THE SMALLEST DETAIL:
    – Every murder
    – Every rape
    – Every genocide
    – Every act of child abuse
    – Every famine
    – Every serial killing
    – Every instance of child prostitution
    – Every terrorist atrocity
    – Every expression of racism,
    – Every addiction
    – And every sin

    – end quote

    Calvinist Lord Kames – Henry Home (1696-1782)
    -quote:
    The Deity is the primary cause of all things. In his infinite mind he formed the great plan of government, which is carried on by LAWS FIXED AND IMMUTABLE. These laws PRODUCE A REGULAR CHAIN OF CAUSES AND EFFECTS in the moral as well as material world, bringing about those events which are comprehended in the original plan, AND ADMITTING THE POSSIBILITY OF NONE OTHER.

    THIS UNIVERSE IS A VAST **MACHINE**, winded up and set a-going: the several springs and wheels operate unerringly one upon another: the hand advanceth and the clock strikes, PRECISELY AS THE ARTIST HAD DETERMINED.

    IN THIS PLAN, MAN BEARS HIS PART, and fulfils certain ends for which HE WAS DESIGNED.
    He MUST be an ACTOR, and MUST ACT with consciousness and spontaneity.

    -end quote:

    William Lane Craig responding to Calvinist Paul Kjoss Helseth
    “Helseth’s response:
    THE **MECHANICS** of how god can be the efficient cause of sin, without actually doing sin, and thus be culpable for sin, is inscrutable”

    Like

      1. Looks to be heavy as a fellow of the enlightenment and as a Scottish philosopher. Some might sight him as part of the programmatic intellectuals within the Scottish provincial Calvinist heritage.

        From his quote above – sure looks like Calvinism to me.

        Probably not of the Calvinists mentored in the beguiling double-talk we find with so many today.
        Find this particular quote very frank – and without ambiguities.
        He’s not afraid to call man a machine controlled by god.

        Like

      2. br.d writes, “Looks to be heavy as a fellow of the enlightenment…”

        I did not see anything in any online bios, descriptions, etc. to tie him to Calvinism. Sites like Monergism do not list him or his writings as contributing to Calvinist theology.

        Like

      3. He doesn’t appear to be noted as a recruiter of Calvinism. So that’s probably why he’s not noted by current Calvinist recruitment institutions. Looks to me that he is noted as a theological determinist of the Scottish protestant-Calvinist heritage.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s